Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV04202, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04202    Hearing Date: May 8, 2025    Dept: 45

DARREN N HAAS, et al. vs PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES, INC. et al.

 

defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions and motion to compel responses to form interrogatories

 

Date of Hearing:        May 8, 2025                           Trial Date:       January 26, 2026

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        24STCV04202

 

Moving Parties:         Defendant Richards Real Estate, Inc.

Responding Parties:  Plaintiff Darren N. Haas and Heather A. Strauch

 

BACKGROUND

 

On February 21, 2024 Darren Haas and Heather Strauch (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Peak Foreclosure Services, Inc. (Peak) and Richards Real Estate, Inc. (Richards) for four causes of action related to wrongful foreclosure: (1) wrongful foreclosure, (2) violation of Civ. Code §2924 et seq., (3) declaratory relief, (4) injunctive relief.

 

In August of 2020 Plaintiffs executed two promissory notes with a maximum amount of $600,000.00 that were secured by Plaintiffs’ interest in two separate real properties: one located at 745 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, California, the other at 825 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, California (the Properties). Plaintiffs never requested an advance, nor are there amounts due under either note. (Complaint, ¶¶9-11.)

 

In addition to the February 21, 2024 Complaint, Plaintiffs filed for and were granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the same day. On March 18, 2024, the Court granted a preliminary injunction which prohibited Peak and Richards from “conducting any Trustee’s sale of or other effort to foreclose” on either of Plaintiffs’ properties.

 

[Tentative] Ruling

 

Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

 

DISCUSSION

 

I.                    DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

 

Defendant Richards Real Estate, Inc. moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Darren Haas for his failure to comply with a court order to provide verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s first set of Requests for Production.

 

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (CCP §§ 2023.010(g); CCP § 2025.450(h).) Misuse of the discovery process includes, but is not limited to, failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive discovery response, and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(d), (f), (g).) The sanctions the Court can impose for misuse of the discovery process include terminating sanctions, by issuing an order dismissing the action against that party. (CCP § 2023.030(d), (e).) Terminating sanctions should be used sparingly and the trial court should attempt less severe alternatives unless the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective to induce the offending party’s compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 496 (finding terminating sanctions proper where plaintiffs violated two discovery orders).) 

 

Defendant argues on April 16, 2024, Defendant served their first set of Requests for Production on Plaintiff. (Stone Decl. ¶2, Exh. 1.) The date of production was set for May 24, 2024. Defendant moved to compel responses, which was heard on January 21, 2025. (Stone Decl. ¶4, Exh. 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to provide verified responses within 30 days and ordered to pay sanctions. (Stone Decl. ¶4, Exh. 2.)  As of March 28, 2025, Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s order to provide verified responses or pay any monetary sanctions.

 

Plaintiff opposes the motion. First, Plaintiffs have now served their verified responses and documents without objection. Moreover, Defendant Richards Real Estate, Inc. has not demonstrated that doomsday sanctions would be appropriate in any event.

 

The court agrees the facts do not suggest Plaintiff’s conduct warrants terminating sanctions at this time. This is the first court order Plaintiff has failed to comply with and moreover, Plaintiff has now produced the responses without objection. However, the court notes it is not clear whether Plaintiff has also paid the court ordered sanctions.

 

At the hearing, Plaintiff must confirm whether the court ordered sanctions have been paid.

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.

 

II.                  DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

 

Defendant Richards Real Estate, Inc. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Heather Strauch to provide verified responses, without objections, to Defendants duly served first set of Form Interrogatories. Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,125.00 against Plaintiff Strauch and her counsel.

 

The propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and monetary sanctions if a party to whom the interrogatories are directed fails to respond. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Responses to interrogatories are due within thirty days from the date of service of the interrogatories. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2016.050.) The responding party waives any objections to the interrogatories by failing to serve responses in a timely manner. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) 

 

Defendant Richards served Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff Strauch on July 12, 2024. (Stone Decl. ¶2.) Responses were due by August 19, 2024. (Stone Decl. ¶2.) Plaintiff did not provide any responses by the deadline or request any extensions. (Stone Decl. ¶3.) Counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel deeming the objections waived and requesting responses on August 21, 2024. (Stone Decl. ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond and no responses have ever been served. (Stone Decl. ¶5.)

 

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

 

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,125.00 for two hours preparing the motion and .5 hours preparing the reply and attending the hearing at counsel’s hourly rate of $450.00.

 

The court GRANTS the request for sanctions.  Sanctions of $1125 are ordered against Strauch and counsel, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.

 




Website by Triangulus