Case Number: KC069426 Hearing Date: May 15, 2018 Dept: J

Re: New Hope Financial Center, Inc. v. Pensco Trust Company, etc., et al. (KC069426)

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF NEW HOPE FINANCIAL CENTER, INC.’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE)[1]; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF NEW HOPE FINANCIAL CENTER, INC.’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

Moving Party: Defendant North American Title Company, Inc.

Respondent: No timely opposition filed (due 5/2/18)

POS: Moving OK

Plaintiff claims an interest as owner of the real property located at 607 S. Barranca Avenue in Covina (“subject property”). Plaintiff alleges that on or about 12/16/12, Defendant Pensco Trust Company Custodian fba John Gregg II Ira 2004642 (“Pensco”) obtained a Deed of Trust With Assignment of Rents to secure a loan it issued against the subject property, which it recorded on or about 12/27/12. Plaintiff claims that the loan from Pensco, and the deed to secure it, were obtained through fraud by persons impersonating plaintiff. On or about 4/3/14, Pensco filed a civil complaint styled Pensco Trust Company Custodian fbo John Gregg II IRA 2004642 v. PB Financial Group Corp., et al., Case No. KC066785 (“Underlying Matter”); during the pendency of the Underlying Matter, plaintiff was deemed liable for the $115,746.60 tax lien on the subject property that was paid through escrow and Pensco was granted equitable subrogation as security for this debt. The Underlying Matter was settled and dismissed. Plaintiff claims that Pensco, however, refuses to release its deed against the subject property or to modify it to only reference the $115,746.60. The complaint was filed 6/29/17. The First Amended Complaint, filed 9/12/17, asserts causes of action against Pensco and Does 1-10 for:

1. Cancellation of Written Instruments;

2. Slander of Title;

3. Violation of California Fair Debt Collection Act [Civil Code § 1788 et seq.];

4. Negligence;

5. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and

6. Conspiracy

The Final Status Conference is set for 2/1/19. A jury trial is set for 2/5/19.

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED):

Defendant North American Title Company, Inc. (“defendant”) moves the court for an order, per CCP § 2033.280, that the truth of all matters specified in its Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded on Plaintiff New Hope Financial Center, Inc. (“plaintiff”) be deemed admitted and conclusively established for all purposes in this action. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $685.00.

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:…(b) The 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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (c) The court shall make this order, 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” CCP § 2033.280.

On or about 2/12/18, defendant mail-served its Requests for Admission, Set No. One on plaintiff. (Levota Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit “1”). On 3/30/18, defendant’s counsel Joseph Levota sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel Michael Lewis (“Lewis”), advising Lewis that plaintiff’s responses were overdue and asking him to indicate whether or not plaintiff anticipated providing responses. (Id., ¶ 3, Exhibit “2”). Lewis has not responded to the 3/30/18 letter as of the date of the filing of the motion, nor has plaintiff responded to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 4).

Unless verified responses have been served by plaintiff prior to the hearing, the motion is granted and those matters set forth in the Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted by plaintiff.

Sanctions are awarded, but reduced to $435.00 (i.e., 0.5 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $250.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee) payable by plaintiff and its counsel to counsel for defendants within 10 days.

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS:

Defendant North American Title Company, Inc. (“defendant”) moves the court for an order requiring Plaintiff New Hope Financial Center, Inc. (“plaintiff”) to provide responses to its Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $685.00.

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand…” CCP § 2031.260(a). “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply…(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust…” CCP § 2031.300.

On or about 2/12/18, defendant mail-served its Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. One on plaintiff. (Levota Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit “1”). On 3/30/18, defendant’s counsel Joseph Levota sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel Michael Lewis (“Lewis”), advising Lewis that plaintiff’s responses were overdue and asking him to indicate whether or not plaintiff anticipated providing responses. (Id., ¶ 3, Exhibit “2”). Lewis has not responded to the 3/30/18 letter as of the date of the filing of the motion, not has plaintiff responded to the discovery. (Id., ¶ 4).

Unless a verified response has been served by plaintiff prior to the hearing, plaintiff is ordered to serve a verified response and to produce the applicable documents within 10 days.

Sanctions are awarded, but reduced to $435.00 (i.e., 0.5 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $250.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee), payable by plaintiff and its counsel to counsel for defendants within 10 days..

[1] It appears that defendant is not actually seeking to compel responses; rather, the notice of motion indicates that it is moving the court for an order that the truth of all matters specified in its Requests for Admissions (Set One) propounded on plaintiff be deemed admitted.