Case Name: Marguerite Ruth Edwards v. Aargon Agency, Inc., dba Aargon Collection Agency, et al.

Case No.: 18CV322152

Motion to Compel Completed Case Questionnaire from Defendant, Aargon Agency, Inc., and for Monetary Sanctions

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Marguerite Ruth Edwards (“Edwards”) incurred a financial obligation, namely a consumer medical debt (“Debt”) owed to George Washington University Hospital. (Complaint, ¶10.) Thereafter, the Debt was consigned, placed, or otherwise transferred to defendant Aargon Agency, Inc., d/b/a Aargon Collection Agency (“Aargon”) for collection from plaintiff Edwards. (Complaint, ¶11.)

On or about October 19, 2017, defendant Aargon sent a collection letter to plaintiff Edwards which was defendant’s first written notice initially addressed to plaintiff Edwards in connection with collecting the Debt. (Complaint, ¶¶12 – 13 and Exh. 1.) The collection letter provides the notice required by Civil Code section 1812.700, subdivision (a) in a type-size that is smaller than 12-point type and smaller than the type-size used to inform plaintiff Edwards of the specific debt. (Complaint, ¶14.)

On January 22, 2018, defendant Edwards filed a complaint against defendant Aargon asserting a single cause of action for violation of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Civil Code section 1788.17.

According to the proof of service filed February 5, 2018, plaintiff Edwards served defendant Aargon with a “Completed Case Questionnaire-For Limited Civil Cases” and a “Blank Case Questionnaire-For Limited Civil Cases” along with the summons and complaint on January 23, 2018.

On March 5, 2018, defendant Aargon filed an answer to plaintiff Edwards’ complaint. Defendant Aargon did not provide a completed Case Questionnaire to plaintiff Edwards.

On March 9, 2018, plaintiff Edwards’ counsel sent a letter, by fax, to defendant Aargon’s counsel requesting a completed Case Questionnaire by March 16, 2018.

Plaintiff Edwards’ counsel did not receive a completed Case Questionnaire from defendant Aargon by April 5, 2018.

On April 5, 2018, plaintiff Edwards filed the motion now before the court, a motion to compel completed case questionnaire from defendant Aargon and request for monetary sanctions.

I. Plaintiff Edwards’ motion to compel completed case questionnaire from defendant Aargon is DENIED as MOOT.

(a) The plaintiff has the option to serve case questionnaires with the complaint, using forms approved by the Judicial Council. The questionnaires served shall include a completed copy of the plaintiff’s completed case questionnaire, and a blank copy of the defendant’s case questionnaire.
(b) Any defendant upon whom a case questionnaire is served shall serve a completed defendant’s case questionnaire upon the requesting plaintiff with the answer.
(c) The case questionnaire shall be designed to elicit fundamental information about each party’s case, including names and addresses of all witnesses with knowledge of any relevant facts, a list of all documents relevant to the case, a statement of the nature and amount of damages, and information covering insurance coverages, injuries and treating physicians. The Judicial Council shall design and develop forms for case questionnaires.
…
(e) If a party on whom a case questionnaire has been served under subdivision (a) or (b) fails to serve a timely or a complete response to that questionnaire, the party serving the questionnaire may move for an order compelling a response or a further response and for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.

(Code Civ. Proc., §93.)

Plaintiff Edwards served defendant Aargon with a case questionnaire, but defendant Aargon did not serve a completed case questionnaire along with its answer to plaintiff Edwards’ complaint.

In opposition, defendant Aargon’s counsel declares he did not see the March 9, 2018 meet and confer letter from plaintiff Edwards’ counsel and defendant Aargon’s counsel’s office has been unable to locate the faxed letter. Defendant Aargon’s counsel argues any failure to respond was an oversight. On May 8, 2018, defendant Aargon served plaintiff Edwards with a completed case questionnaire by mail and e-mail.

When discovery responses are served after a motion to compel is filed, the court has substantial discretion in deciding how to rule in light of the particular circumstances presented. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409 (Sinaiko).) Through this discretion, the court might deny the motion to compel as moot and just impose sanctions, or examine the responses to determine if they are code-compliant. (Sinaiko, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 409.)

Here, defendant Aargon provided a completed case questionnaire after plaintiff Edwards filed this motion to compel. Consequently, the court deems the motion to compel completed case questionnaire is MOOT and is, for that reason, DENIED.

On the issue of sanctions, Code of Civil Procedure section 93, subdivision (e) authorizes plaintiff Edwards to seek a monetary sanction. Generally, when a response is served after a motion to compel is filed, the court would be inclined to impose sanctions against the responding party. However, the court declines to impose sanctions under the circumstances where it appears defendant Aargon’s failure to serve a completed case questionnaire was the result of not receiving plaintiff Edwards’ meet and confer letter and/or oversight. Accordingly, plaintiff Edwards’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.