Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Steve Barkin. Below is a republication of the tentative ruling. Lawzilla believes the case was dismissed and no final order was issued.

Case Number: BC653347 Hearing Date: April 02, 2018 Dept: 32

anna kyungja kim,

Plaintiff,

v.

hsbc bank usa, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC653347

Hearing Date: April 2, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

(1) Defendant’s motion to have requests for admission deemed admitted

(2) defendant’s motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents

(3) defendant’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful foreclosure action. Plaintiff Anna Kyungja Kim’s (“Plaintiff”) property (“Property”) was sold at a foreclosure sale to Defendant Prop Value Properties, Inc. (“PVP”) on March 27, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants HSBC Bank USA N.A. (“Defendant”) and Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (“Specialized”) refused to allow Plaintiff to conduct a short-sale. Plaintiff alleges various irregularities in the foreclosure process against her lenders. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the HBOR; (2) wrongful foreclosure; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) fraud; and (7) quiet title. Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice on March 15, 2018.

DISCUSSION

A. Requests for Admission

“If a party fails to provide a timely response to a request for admission, the party waives any objection to the requests. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) Moreover, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction….” (CCP § 2033.280(b).) Generally, the Court must grant such a request “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.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

As set forth in the motion, Defendant HSBC (“Defendant”) propounded its requests for admission (“RFA”) on Plaintiff Anna Kim (“Plaintiff”) on November 8, 2017. The time for Plaintiff to respond to the RFAs expired on December 8, 2017. As of the filing of the motion, no responses have been served. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to dispute the above showing or to show that responses have since been served.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Defendant also requests monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §2030.300. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,140.00 (2 hours for preparation of the motion and 2 hours for hearing attendance at $285.00 per hour).

B. Requests for Production of Documents

“If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it. . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. . . . The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.300(a)–(b).)

As set forth in the motion, Defendant propounded the discovery on Plaintiff on November 8, 2017 by overnight express. Plaintiff’s responses were due to be served on December 8, 2017. As of the filing of the motion, no responses have been received. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to show that responses have since been served.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Defendant also requests monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §2030.300. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285.00 (1 hour for preparation of the motion at $285.00 per hour.)

C. Form and Special Interrogatories

When timely responses to interrogatories are not received, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).)

As set forth in the motion, Defendant propounded the discovery on Plaintiff on November 8, 2017 by overnight express. Plaintiff’s responses were due to be served on December 8, 2017. As of the filing of the motion, no responses have been received. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to show that responses have since been served.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Defendant also requests monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §2030.300. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285.00 (1 hour for preparation of the motion at $285.00 per hour.)