Preview
WOME
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-22-2012 10:54 am
Case Number: CUD-12-642163
Filing Date: Aug-22-2012 10:53
Filed by: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03734221
MOTION (CIVIL GENERIC)
ECLIPSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. VS. WILFREDO N. UMANZOR et al
001003734221
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.om Nr DAH SF WN
10
Michael C. Hall (SBN 98103) I
ee ED
Attorneys and Counselors at Law San Francisco Cauniy Serr Court
605 Market Street Suite 900 AUG 9 2012
San Francisco CA 94105
Telephone: GS) §12-9865
Facsimile: (415) 495-7204
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ECLIPSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.
OF THE COURT
ey. poe
ee Clark
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LIMITED JURISDICTION
ECLIPSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT) Case No.: CUD-12-642163
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
Plaintiff, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
vs. MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT; MEMORANDUM OF
WILFREDO N, UMANZOR, et al. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
CCP §§ 1170.8, 2023.010, 2030.290,
Defendants. 031.3: , 2033.280(b) and (c)]
DISCOVERY MOTION]
Accompanying documents: Declaration of
‘ounsel; Proposed Order]
Date: August 29, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 501
TO DEFENDANT WILFREDO N. UMANZOR aka WILFREDO I. UMANZOR, HIS
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD (IF APPLICABLE), AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS
HEREIN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on August 29, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard in Department 501 of the above-named Court, located at 400
McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102, plaintiff ECLIPSE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT INC. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’) will and hereby does move the
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Case No. CUD-12-642163
{Cc Oem NYDN eR YW NY
RNR YR NYNN KR See ese ee me Be Be
eau ca ae BH FESO WIAA A BwWH
Court for an order compelling verified responses to discovery, without objections, from
defendant WILFREDO N. UMANZOR aka WILFREDO I. UMANZOR (hereinafter referred
to as "Defendant") and establishing admissions from Defendant. Defendant did not respond to
Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories — Unlawful Detainer (Set One), Specially Prepared
Interrogatories (Set Onc), Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set
One), and Requests for Admission (Set One) [Declaration of Andres Sanchez ("Sanchez
Decl."), Ex. A, B, C and D]. Plaintiff also served a Declaration for Additional Discovery
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050 as Plaintiff propounded more than 35
specially prepared interrogatories. [Sanchez Decl. Ex. E]. Defendant’s intentional failure to
respond to the discovery is without merit and done to frustrate Plaintiff's efforts to prepare its
case for trial.
Plaintiff requests an order directing Defendant to serve verified responses to the
discovery, without objections, along with responsive documents, by personal service on
Plaintiffs counsel by no later than noon on September 4, 2012. The instant motion to compel
and to establish admissions is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290
and 2031.300, which authorize a party to move to compel responses when none have been
received, and section 1170.8, which authorizes discovery motions based on a five-day notice
in unlawful detainer actions.
Further, Plaintiff will and hereby does move the Court for an order that the truth of
matters specified in Plaintiff's Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded on Defendant be
deemed admitted due to the failure of Defendant to timely respond to said requests. This
motion is brought pursuant to CCP § 2033.280. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280 subsections (b)
and (c), Plaintiff further moves for an order awarding monetary sanctions against Defendant
and in favor of Plaintiff for Defendant’s failure to respond to the requests, which necessitated
this motion.
Defendant’s refusal to respond to the discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.
Plaintiff further requests an order imposing monetary sanctions of $810 against Defendant
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), and
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Case No. CUD-12-642163
2—
Cm I DAA FF WN
10
2033.280 subsections (b) and (c) for his failure to respond to the discovery.
This motion is based upon the instant Notice of Hearing on Motion and Motion, the
attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Andres Sanchez, the
[Proposed] Order, and on such other documentary evidence and oral argument as may be
admitted by the Court at the hearing thereon.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 22, 2012 MC HALL & ASSOCIATES
By: ~
Attorney for Plaintiff
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
By this motion, Plaintiff requests an order from the Court commanding Defendant to
serve verified responses to Plaintiff's written discovery, without objections, to produce all
responsive documents, and to establish admissions from Defendant. This is an unlawful
detainer action regarding residential property located in the City and County of San Francisco,
State of California and commonly known as 5 Murray Street #208, San Francisco CA 94112
(hereinafter referred to as "the Premises"). Plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the
Premises from Defendant based upon a Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit that has been
served upon Defendant and terminated Defendant's right to the Premises upon expiration on
July 23, 2012. Defendant answered the complaint and disputes that Plaintiff has the right to
recover possession on the basis stated in the complaint. Thus, Defendant's responses to the
discovery are important to the preparation of Plaintiff's case prior to the trial of this matter.
Defendant failed to timely serve any responses to the above-referenced discovery,
which responses were due by no later than August 20, 2012. Plaintiff therefore requests an
order compelling production of verified responses to the discovery, without objections, and
responsive documents, by no later than noon on September 4, 2012. By the time of the
hearing on this motion Defendant's responses will be 8 days overdue. Plaintiff therefore
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Case No. CUD-12-642163
3woe ND HW FF WN
NH NY NY N NN NY DY Ne eR Re
CI DAU BF wWw HF SO we DA PF WN HS OD
requests that Defendant’s responses be personally served on its counsel in order to avoid
further delay and to give its counsel sufficient time to review the responses for the trial.
Plaintiff further requests an order that the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff's Requests for
Admission (Set One) propounded on Defendant be deemed admitted due to the failure of
Defendant to timely respond to said requests.
Ir. ARGUMENT
If a party to whom interrogatories and a demand for inspection of documents were
propounded fails to serve a timely response, the party waives all objections to the discovery as
a matter of law and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. CCP
§§ 2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a), (b). When no responses have been received, the moving
party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter
informally with the opposing party before filing the motion, as is required with a motion to
compel further responses. See, Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906. Nor
is there a time limit by when the party must make a motion to compel. Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 404 (statutes
contain no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served). In the
instant case, no responses have been received. Sanchez Decl. 9.
A motion to compel responses may be heard even if late responses are served after the
motion is filed. The moving party may request that the court determine whether the responses
are legally sufficient and award sanctions for the failure to respond on time. Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal. App. 4th at
410-411. Defendant did not serve any responses to the discovery at issue in this motion,
Thus, any objections he may have asserted have been waived by operation of law. CCP §§
2030.290(a), (b), 203 1.300(a), (b).
The failure to respond to discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. CCP §
2023.010(d). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c),
where a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and a document production demand is
granted, the court shail order the party to whom the discovery was directed to pay the
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Case No. CUD-12-642163
4Oo em NN DAH BF WN
wR KY NY KY NY NHK NK —& & S&B Be Be ee ew
CWI Aw SF WKH KF SO Oat DH FP WKY HK S
propounding party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, in enforcing its right to
discovery. There is no question the discovery was served, and that Defendant refused to
respond, The Court should order Defendant to pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorney’s fees and
costs associated with this motion in the amount of $810. Sanchez Decl. {J 10-12.
Where a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting party may
move for an order that the genuineness of documents and the truth of any matters specified in
the requests be deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). If no responses are made prior to the
hearing on such a motion, the Court has no discretion other than to grant the admission
motion. CCP § 2033.280(c) (the court shall make this order); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile
Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396. Moreover, even if a defendant serves a
delayed response to a request prior to the hearing, monetary sanctions are mandatory. CCP §
2033.280(c). Finally, because the motion deals with a failure to respond instead of inadequate
responses, the moving party does not have to establish an attempt to resolve the matter
informally before making its motion. See, Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, supra,
36 Cal. App. 4th at 395.
Here, Plaintiff propounded the requests at issue in this motion on August 13, 2012 by
overnight mail. Sanchez Decl. § 7. The requests asked Defendant to admit the truth of matters
and genuineness of documents that are directly relevant to this case and to Defendant’s
wrongful occupancy of the Premises. Exh. D.
Defendant’s responses to the requests were due by August 20, 2012. Sanchez Decl. 4 8.
Defendant failed to serve any responses to Plaintiff's requests for admissions. Sanchez Decl. ¥
9. Defendant's failure to respond necessitated this motion, which has caused Plaintiff to incur
expenses in bringing the motion reasonably estimated at $810. Sanchez Decl. § 10-12.
Mit
Mt
Mf
It
Mit
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Case No. CUD-12-642163
5CCD OW ND BR YW NY
mee
No
15
16
II. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court grant its
motion. Should Defendant serve his responses at the hearing on the instant motion to compel,
Plaintiff will request a hearing to determine whether the responses are complete and verified.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 22, 2011 MC HALL & ASSOCIATES
By:
ANDRES SANCHEZ
Attorney for Plaintiff
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Case No, CUD-12-642163
6CO eI DM BW N =
N NY NY NY NY NY NY NN FSF FEF KK SE =
PROOF OF SERVICE - CIVIL
I declare that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not
a party to the within cause; my business address is 605 Market Street, Suite 900, San
Francisco, California 94105. On the date last shown below I served a true Cony of the
foregoing NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on the interested
parties in said action as follows:
BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused a true and correct copy of the above document,
by fgilowing ordinary business practices, to be placed and sealed in an envelope addressed
as follows:
Wilfredo N. Umanzor
aka Wilfredo I. Umanzor
5 Murray St #208
San Francisco CA 94112
with Express Mail postage paid and for collection and mailing with the United States Postal
Service's Express Mail service in the ordinary course of business, correspondence placed for
collection on a particular day, which is deposited with the United States Postal Service that
same day.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California on August 9°, 2012.
La Biney
Jennifer Bearss
Preview
WOME SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Aug-22-2012 10:54 am Case Number: CUD-12-642163 Filing Date: Aug-22-2012 10:53 Filed by: WILLIAM TRUPEK Juke Box: 001 Image: 03734221 MOTION (CIVIL GENERIC) ECLIPSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. VS. WILFREDO N. UMANZOR et al 001003734221 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.om Nr DAH SF WN 10 Michael C. Hall (SBN 98103) I ee ED Attorneys and Counselors at Law San Francisco Cauniy Serr Court 605 Market Street Suite 900 AUG 9 2012 San Francisco CA 94105 Telephone: GS) §12-9865 Facsimile: (415) 495-7204 Attorneys for Plaintiff ECLIPSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. OF THE COURT ey. poe ee Clark SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LIMITED JURISDICTION ECLIPSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT) Case No.: CUD-12-642163 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Plaintiff, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR vs. MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT; MEMORANDUM OF WILFREDO N, UMANZOR, et al. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CCP §§ 1170.8, 2023.010, 2030.290, Defendants. 031.3: , 2033.280(b) and (c)] DISCOVERY MOTION] Accompanying documents: Declaration of ‘ounsel; Proposed Order] Date: August 29, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 501 TO DEFENDANT WILFREDO N. UMANZOR aka WILFREDO I. UMANZOR, HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD (IF APPLICABLE), AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on August 29, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 501 of the above-named Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102, plaintiff ECLIPSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’) will and hereby does move the NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Case No. CUD-12-642163 {Cc Oem NYDN eR YW NY RNR YR NYNN KR See ese ee me Be Be eau ca ae BH FESO WIAA A BwWH Court for an order compelling verified responses to discovery, without objections, from defendant WILFREDO N. UMANZOR aka WILFREDO I. UMANZOR (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") and establishing admissions from Defendant. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories — Unlawful Detainer (Set One), Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set Onc), Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One) [Declaration of Andres Sanchez ("Sanchez Decl."), Ex. A, B, C and D]. Plaintiff also served a Declaration for Additional Discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050 as Plaintiff propounded more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories. [Sanchez Decl. Ex. E]. Defendant’s intentional failure to respond to the discovery is without merit and done to frustrate Plaintiff's efforts to prepare its case for trial. Plaintiff requests an order directing Defendant to serve verified responses to the discovery, without objections, along with responsive documents, by personal service on Plaintiffs counsel by no later than noon on September 4, 2012. The instant motion to compel and to establish admissions is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, which authorize a party to move to compel responses when none have been received, and section 1170.8, which authorizes discovery motions based on a five-day notice in unlawful detainer actions. Further, Plaintiff will and hereby does move the Court for an order that the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff's Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded on Defendant be deemed admitted due to the failure of Defendant to timely respond to said requests. This motion is brought pursuant to CCP § 2033.280. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280 subsections (b) and (c), Plaintiff further moves for an order awarding monetary sanctions against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for Defendant’s failure to respond to the requests, which necessitated this motion. Defendant’s refusal to respond to the discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff further requests an order imposing monetary sanctions of $810 against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), and NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Case No. CUD-12-642163 2— Cm I DAA FF WN 10 2033.280 subsections (b) and (c) for his failure to respond to the discovery. This motion is based upon the instant Notice of Hearing on Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Andres Sanchez, the [Proposed] Order, and on such other documentary evidence and oral argument as may be admitted by the Court at the hearing thereon. Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 22, 2012 MC HALL & ASSOCIATES By: ~ Attorney for Plaintiff MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION By this motion, Plaintiff requests an order from the Court commanding Defendant to serve verified responses to Plaintiff's written discovery, without objections, to produce all responsive documents, and to establish admissions from Defendant. This is an unlawful detainer action regarding residential property located in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California and commonly known as 5 Murray Street #208, San Francisco CA 94112 (hereinafter referred to as "the Premises"). Plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the Premises from Defendant based upon a Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit that has been served upon Defendant and terminated Defendant's right to the Premises upon expiration on July 23, 2012. Defendant answered the complaint and disputes that Plaintiff has the right to recover possession on the basis stated in the complaint. Thus, Defendant's responses to the discovery are important to the preparation of Plaintiff's case prior to the trial of this matter. Defendant failed to timely serve any responses to the above-referenced discovery, which responses were due by no later than August 20, 2012. Plaintiff therefore requests an order compelling production of verified responses to the discovery, without objections, and responsive documents, by no later than noon on September 4, 2012. By the time of the hearing on this motion Defendant's responses will be 8 days overdue. Plaintiff therefore NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Case No. CUD-12-642163 3woe ND HW FF WN NH NY NY N NN NY DY Ne eR Re CI DAU BF wWw HF SO we DA PF WN HS OD requests that Defendant’s responses be personally served on its counsel in order to avoid further delay and to give its counsel sufficient time to review the responses for the trial. Plaintiff further requests an order that the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff's Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded on Defendant be deemed admitted due to the failure of Defendant to timely respond to said requests. Ir. ARGUMENT If a party to whom interrogatories and a demand for inspection of documents were propounded fails to serve a timely response, the party waives all objections to the discovery as a matter of law and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. CCP §§ 2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a), (b). When no responses have been received, the moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally with the opposing party before filing the motion, as is required with a motion to compel further responses. See, Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906. Nor is there a time limit by when the party must make a motion to compel. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 404 (statutes contain no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served). In the instant case, no responses have been received. Sanchez Decl. 9. A motion to compel responses may be heard even if late responses are served after the motion is filed. The moving party may request that the court determine whether the responses are legally sufficient and award sanctions for the failure to respond on time. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal. App. 4th at 410-411. Defendant did not serve any responses to the discovery at issue in this motion, Thus, any objections he may have asserted have been waived by operation of law. CCP §§ 2030.290(a), (b), 203 1.300(a), (b). The failure to respond to discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. CCP § 2023.010(d). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c), where a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and a document production demand is granted, the court shail order the party to whom the discovery was directed to pay the NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Case No. CUD-12-642163 4Oo em NN DAH BF WN wR KY NY KY NY NHK NK —& & S&B Be Be ee ew CWI Aw SF WKH KF SO Oat DH FP WKY HK S propounding party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, in enforcing its right to discovery. There is no question the discovery was served, and that Defendant refused to respond, The Court should order Defendant to pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with this motion in the amount of $810. Sanchez Decl. {J 10-12. Where a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). If no responses are made prior to the hearing on such a motion, the Court has no discretion other than to grant the admission motion. CCP § 2033.280(c) (the court shall make this order); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396. Moreover, even if a defendant serves a delayed response to a request prior to the hearing, monetary sanctions are mandatory. CCP § 2033.280(c). Finally, because the motion deals with a failure to respond instead of inadequate responses, the moving party does not have to establish an attempt to resolve the matter informally before making its motion. See, Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, supra, 36 Cal. App. 4th at 395. Here, Plaintiff propounded the requests at issue in this motion on August 13, 2012 by overnight mail. Sanchez Decl. § 7. The requests asked Defendant to admit the truth of matters and genuineness of documents that are directly relevant to this case and to Defendant’s wrongful occupancy of the Premises. Exh. D. Defendant’s responses to the requests were due by August 20, 2012. Sanchez Decl. 4 8. Defendant failed to serve any responses to Plaintiff's requests for admissions. Sanchez Decl. ¥ 9. Defendant's failure to respond necessitated this motion, which has caused Plaintiff to incur expenses in bringing the motion reasonably estimated at $810. Sanchez Decl. § 10-12. Mit Mt Mf It Mit NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Case No. CUD-12-642163 5CCD OW ND BR YW NY mee No 15 16 II. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court grant its motion. Should Defendant serve his responses at the hearing on the instant motion to compel, Plaintiff will request a hearing to determine whether the responses are complete and verified. Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 22, 2011 MC HALL & ASSOCIATES By: ANDRES SANCHEZ Attorney for Plaintiff NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Case No, CUD-12-642163 6CO eI DM BW N = N NY NY NY NY NY NY NN FSF FEF KK SE = PROOF OF SERVICE - CIVIL I declare that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 605 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California 94105. On the date last shown below I served a true Cony of the foregoing NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on the interested parties in said action as follows: BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused a true and correct copy of the above document, by fgilowing ordinary business practices, to be placed and sealed in an envelope addressed as follows: Wilfredo N. Umanzor aka Wilfredo I. Umanzor 5 Murray St #208 San Francisco CA 94112 with Express Mail postage paid and for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service's Express Mail service in the ordinary course of business, correspondence placed for collection on a particular day, which is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California on August 9°, 2012. La Biney Jennifer Bearss