Case Number: VC065971 Hearing Date: April 17, 2018 Dept: SEC

FOBBS v. SOUTHCOAST AUTOMOTIVE

CASE NO.: VC065971

HEARING: 04/17/18

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set two) is GRANTED. CCP §2030.290.

II. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s motion to deem matters in requests for admissions admitted is GRANTED. CCP §2033.280.

III. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s motion to compel deposition of Defendant/Cross-Complainant LAQUENT D. FOBBS is GRANTED. CCP § 2025.450.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant LAQUENT D. FOBBS is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant VEROS CREDIT, LLC and its counsel of record, sanctions in the total amount of $1,642.50 ($325/hr. x 4.5 hrs.) + ($180 filing fee) within 15 days of the date of this hearing.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant LAQUENT D. FOBBS is ORDERED to provide verified responses to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (set two), without objection within 15 days of the date of this hearing.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant LAQUENT D. FOBBS is ORDERED to appear for a deposition, without objection, at a reasonable date and time to be determined by the moving party— no later than 15 days from the date of this hearing. The date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of April 13, 2018.

Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to

resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Plaintiff has shown that Form Interrogatories (set two) was properly served on Defendant (in pro per) on October 3, 2017. The deadline to respond has expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. Plaintiff filed this motion on December 4, 2017, approximately two months after service of the discovery. As of April 13, 2018, Defendant has not filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Therefore, the Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (set two) is granted, and Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses, without objection. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

Monetary Sanctions

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).)

Defendant does not oppose the instant motion to compel. As such, there is nothing to show that Defendant acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted as set forth above.

Motion to Deem Defendant’s RFA’s Admitted

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests…. The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect…. (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP §2033.280.) No prior attempt to resolve the matter informally is required.

Here, RFAs were propounded by Plaintiff on October 3, 2017. Defendant (in pro per) has failed to provide any response. As such, the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is granted.

Monetary Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory pursuant to the terms of CCP §2033.280(c), therefore, sanctions are awarded as indicated above.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant LAQUENT D. FOBBS

Service of a proper deposition notice obligates a party to attend and testify. If such party fails to appear, such appearance may be compelled and monetary sanctions imposed. Monetary sanctions may be imposed even if the party’s failure to appear was entirely inadvertent. It is enough that the deponent failed to appear for the examination. Here, it is undisputed that Defendant (in pro per) failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition(s). (CCP §2015.410.) The motion to compel Defendant LAQUENT D. FOBBS’ deposition is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted, as indicated above.