BC335170

Moving Party: Plaintiff, BAG Fund, LLC (“BAG”)

Resp. Party: None

Defendant BAG Fund LLC’s unopposed motion to compel responses to post-judgment interrogatories and demand for documents is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff L&J Assets LLC commenced this action on 6/17/05 against defendant Jose Vasquez for breach of contract, account stated, and open book account.

A default judgment was entered for plaintiff and against Vasquez on 2/21/07. The judgment included total damages of $32,693.00.

On 5/4/07, an assignment of judgment was filed in this action. This document stated that, for value received, the rights, title, and interest in the money judgment were assigned from plaintiff to moving party Bag Fund LLC.

On 5/2/08, Vasquez moved to set aside the default and default judgment. The Court granted this motion on 6/16/08.

A court trial occurred on 4/8/09, and the Court, the Hon. Kenneth R. Freeman presiding, found in favor of plaintiff and against Vasquez.

Judgment was entered on 5/11/09. Plaintiff was awarded actual damages in the amount of $18,250.20, contractual interest in the amount of $10,027.92, post-judgment interest in the amount of $6,950.07, and costs in the amount of $5,106.28.

Vasquez thereafter filed an appeal. A remittitur was filed on 7/23/10. The appellate court affirmed the judgment.

On 2/2/11, another assignment of judgment was filed. This document stated that, for value received, the rights, title, and interest in the money judgment in the sum of $40,334.47 were assigned from plaintiff to moving party Bag Fund LLC.

On February 28, 2014, the court assigned rents derived from 9961 Vena Avenue, Arleta CA 91331 to BAG.

ANALYSIS:

Substantive analysis

A party not in receipt of verified responses to interrogatories and demands for production of documents may file a motion to compel responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300.) The court shall impose sanctions unless the court finds the responding party acted with justification, or other circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300.)

BAG served Vasquez with Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production of Document on January 24, 2014. Responses were due no later than February 28, 2014. On March 3, 2014, BAG sent a meet and confer later regarding the late responses. No responses have been served, thereby entitling BAG to an order compelling responses and sanctions.

BAG requests sanctions of $2,420 as follows: 4 hours preparing the motion and 4 hours attending the hearing (at $295/hr) + $60 filing fee. Although the court finds that counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, the amount of time claimed is neither reasonable nor necessary. The MPA contained no original research; it should have taken no longer than 15-20 minutes to block and paste the appropriate paragraphs into this motion. Further, while counsel is always welcome to appear in person, given that the motion is unopposed, counsel can choose to appear by CourtCall and save the 4 hours claimed that he needs to attend the hearing.

“‘If . . . the Court were required to award a reasonable fee when an outrageously unreasonable one has been asked for, claimants would be encouraged to make unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be reduction of their fee to what they should have asked in the first place. To discourage such greed, a severer reaction is needful . . . .’ (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635, quoting Brown v. Stackler (7th Cir. 1980) 612 F.2d 1057, 1059.) “A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 990; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1137; Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635.)

Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Sanctions, consisting of the of the filing of $60.00, are awarded. Responses to be served, and sanctions to be paid, within 30 days.