Collectronics, Inc. v. Nick James Stanley

Collectronics, Inc. v. Nick James Stanley, et al. CASE NO. 113CV257093
DATE: 16 January 2015 TIME: 9:00 LINE NUMBER: 11

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 408.882.2310 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 15 January 2015.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 16 January 2015, the motion of Plaintiff Collectronics to compel answers to post judgment discovery and for award of monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.

Defendant Nick James Stanley filed no formal opposition to the motion.

  1. Statement of Facts

This case is a collection action to collect sums from Defendant.  Defendant is proprietor of a business known as Interstate Paving and Construction located in Morgan Hill, California.  Plaintiff was assigned Defendant’s debt by non-party Lynks Developers, LLC.

  1. Discovery Dispute

Plaintiff failed in collecting said debt through conventional collection means and thus suit was filed.  Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff on 2 June 2014.  Plaintiff has continued to be unsuccessful in their attempts to collect on sums due post-judgment.

On 10 June 2014, Plaintiff served Defendant by mail with post-judgment discovery including plaintiff’s post-judgment interrogatories and production of documents and tangible things.  (Ex. A; Kappos Decl. ¶ 1). Plaintiff confirmed that the address served was that of Defendant through use of a property detail report from RealQuest.com which states that “Stanley Nicholas and Shelly” are owners of the property at the address served.  (Ex. D; Kappos Decl. ¶ 4).  The responses to the above discussed discovery was due 17 July 2014.  (Ex. A; Kappos Decl ¶ 2).  Defendant has failed to respond in any way to said discovery. (Id.)

On 28 July 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to Defendant informing him that he had failed to respond to discovery and that Plaintiff intended to bring the present motion unless discovery was responded to post-haste. (Ex. B; Kappos Decl. ¶ 2).  On 22 August 2014, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant. (Ex. C; Kappos Decl. ¶ 3).

The present motion was filed 7 October 2014.

  • Discussion
  1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery.

Under CCP § 708.020(a), a “judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories to the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4, requesting information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall answer the interrogatories in the manner and within the time provided by Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.)”  Here, Plaintiff has served code-compliant discovery requests on Defendant in order to search for attachable assets in the name of Defendant.  What’s more, “interrogatories served pursuant to [CCP § 208.020] may be enforced, to the extent practicable, in the same manner as interrogatories in a civil action.”  Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery is appropriate where Defendant has failed to respond to their discovery requests.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to the discovery without objection within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

  1. Request for Sanctions

Defendant makes a request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $390.  The request is not code-compliant.

In support of the request for sanctions, Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030. Section 2023.030 provides that sanctions may be imposed for misuses of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.”  As such, section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis for an award of sanctions.  In other words, to invoke section 2023.030 as a basis for sanctions, the moving party must first be authorized to seek sanctions under the provisions in the Civil Discovery Act applicable to the discovery requests at issue.

What’s more, in this case the CCP in general is inappropriate authority.  Defendant has not unsuccessfully opposed the Plaintiff’s motion; it has not opposed it at all. Therefore, reliance on any section of the CCP for monetary sanctions is inapplicable in this case. The proper authority for monetary sanctions in this case would be Rule of Court 3.1348(a), where 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.

The Court suggests the proper procedure would be to put the following language in the notice of the motion:

“If you wish to oppose the relief requested in this motion, you must timely file a written reply in compliance with all Court rules.  If you fail to do so, the court may treat your failure to respond as a waiver of your right to oppose this motion and may grant the relief requested pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1348(a) which states: “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.”

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $390 is DENIED.

  1. Order

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to the discovery without objection within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $390 is DENIED.

 

 

________________­­­____________

DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________

HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN

Judge of the Superior Court

County of Santa Clara

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *