Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV38851, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV38851    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     August 24, 2022                     TRIAL DATE: October 3, 2022

CASE:                         Ana Liza Filio v. Statebridge Co., LLC et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV38851           

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Ana Liza Filio

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 8/22/22

CASE HISTORY:

• 10/23/19: Complaint filed.
• 03/25/20: First Amended Complaint filed.
• 08/12/20: Second Amended Complaint filed.
• 11/09/20: Third Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for fraud and breach of contract.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to form interrogatories from Defendant Newrez, LLC, formerly known as New Penn Financial, LLC, doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. Plaintiff also requests sanctions from Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $4,321.65.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories within 20 days of the date of this order.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,371.65 against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to form interrogatories from Defendant Newrez, LLC, formerly known as New Penn Financial, LLC, doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc.  § 2030.290(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Failure to Provide Responses

            Plaintiff served form interrogatories upon Defendant on December 14, 2021 by mail and electronic service. (Declaration of Yossi Noudel ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exhs. 1, 4.) Plaintiff provided Defendant with an extension to respond to January 28, 2022. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant provided unverified responses on January 28, 2022. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. 2.) No verification has been provided. Unverified responses to discovery interrogatories are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 622, 636.)

            As Defendant has not opposed this motion, the Court finds that Defendant has not properly responded as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling verified responses.

Contents of Responses

            Plaintiff also raises several issues with the contents of the unverified responses to the form interrogatories and requests that the Court compel defendant provide additional information or revisions to the responses. These arguments are not proper on a motion to compel responses under section 2030.290. Instead, these requests are properly brought on a motion to compel further responses under section 2030.300. As Plaintiff has not provided notice that it is moving for relief under section 2030.300, the Court cannot rule on these issues at this time.

Sanctions

            Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $4,321.65 against Defendant and its counsel.

            Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

            Plaintiff bases this request on 4.2 hours of attorney time at $300 per hour (Declaration of Michael K. Hagemann ISO Mot. ¶¶ 3-6), 3 hours of attorney time at $500 per hour, 3 anticipated hours of attorney time at $500 per hour, and $61.65 in filing fees.

The Court declines to award attorney’s fees based on anticipated hours or the preparation of the separate statement, which was neither necessary nor appropriate for this motion as noticed. The Court will therefore reduce the award of attorney’s fees to $1,371.65, representing 1.7 hours of attorney time on the motion and supporting documents at $300 per hour and 1.6 hours of attorney time at $500 per hour, plus $61.65 in filing fees.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is to provide verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories within 20 days of the date of this order.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,371.65 against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally. Payment is to be made to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of the date of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2022                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.