Hinojos v. Asset Ventures, LLC		CASE NO. 113CV256853
DATE: 3 October 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 14

This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 2 October 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 3 October 2014, the motion of Plaintiff to deem requests for admissions served on Defendant, Eagle Crest LLC (“Defendant”) to be admitted and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.

Defendant did not file formal opposition to the motion.[1]

I.       Statement of Facts.

Plaintiff Hinojos has resided at his residence with his family for over 35 years. This action arises out of a dispute over Plaintiff’s home equity line credit secured by a deed of trust that was obtained from Wells Fargo. Subsequently, there were multiple alleged sales of this loan.

On or about 4 March 2012  (recorded 18 April 2014), Wells Fargo allegedly sold the loan and assigned the deed of trust to Eagle Crest, LLC for $3,500. On or about 9 April 2012 (recorded on 18 April 2014), Eagle Crest, LLC  (“Eagle Crest”) then assigned the deed of trust and sold the loan to Newport Beach Holdings, LLC (“Newport Beach Holding”). Newport Beach Holding then assigned the deed of trust to Asset Ventures on 10 April 2012 and recorded on 20 April 2012.[2]

Plaintiff alleged that Eagle Crest and Newport Beach Holdings had no right to do business in the State of California and therefore the assignment made by Eagle Crest and Newport Beach Holding were defective and are legally void. (See Plaintiff Req. for Judicial Notices No.1-3). Moreover, Defendant Michaela Brychcova, who held herself out to be a corporate officer for both companies, signed the assignments of the deed of trust from Eagle Crest to Newport Beach Holdings and then from Newport Beach Holdings to Asset Ventures.

On 9 April 2013, Defendant Anthony Martinez, President of Asset Ventures, executed a substitution of trustee naming Trustee Corps Trustee and recorded the substitution on 19 April 2013. On 17 April 2013, Trustee Corp executed a Notice of Default and recorded it on April 19, 2013.

On 8 November 2013, the Trustee Corp, on behalf of the defendant, recorded a notice of trustee sale. Asset Ventures purchased the note and deed of trust for $3,500. However, on 12 December 2013, Anthony Martinez stated that the amount was $89,160.15.

On 27 November 27, 2013 Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants. The complaint was amended on 11 March of 2014. Both complaints he made alter ego allegations concerning Anthony Martinez and Asset Ventures.

It seems that a request to enter default against Defendant was filed on 16 April 2014.

II.      Discovery Dispute.

On 25 July 2014, Plaintiff served a set of requests for admissions upon Defendant.  On 31 July 2014, Plaintiff served one set of special interrogatories upon Defendant.[3]

In a letter dated August 2014, Plaintiff followed up with Diane Kalinowski, agent for service in process of Eagle Crest, LLC and requested the responses.[4]

III.     Analysis.

A.  Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions to Be Admitted

This Court wonders why this motion is necessary.  As far as this Court can tell, Eagle Crest, LLC has been defaulted and this Court is unaware of any authority justifying compelling a default to party to deem requests to be admitted.

The motion of Plaintiff to deem requests for admissions served on Defendant, Eagle Crest LLC (“Defendant”) to be admitted and for monetary sanctionsis DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a default prove up hearing against this party.

         B. Sanctions.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

IV.     Order.

The motion of Plaintiff to deem requests for admissions served on Defendant, Eagle Crest LLC (“Defendant”) to be admitted and for monetary sanctionsis DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a default prove up hearing against this party.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________ HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

 

 

 

– oo0oo –

 

 

[1] “The failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing or the voluntary provision of discovery shall not be deemed an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded.”  Rule of Court 3.1348(b).

[2] Dates of transfer are not in chronologically order with the other recorded assignment.

[3] The special interrogatories are not a subject of the present motion.  See moving papers, Exhibit 3 (letter of 30 August 2014).

The moving papers are somewhat problematic.  The exhibits are attached to the memorandum of points and authorities and not to the declaration of Mr. Spielbauer.  However, his declaration does refer to the letter by date and therefore this Court will accept the exhibits.

[4] Although no meet and confer is required for this motion, the parties are always encouraged to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.  (McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289.)