Preview
G. Andrew Slater , Esq. (SBN 238126)
DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED E-FILED
8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor
6/11/2018 8:34 AM
P.O. Box 28902
Fresno, California 93729-8902 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
Telephone: (559) 432-4500 By: R. Faccinto, Deputy
Facsimile: (559) 432-4590
aslater@dowlingaaron.com
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY NATIONAL BANK
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
SURJIT BAGGA, Case No. 16CECG03336
11
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
12 ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY
v SANCTIONS AND ISSUE, EVIDENCE,
13 AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
CITY NATIONAL BANK, FRESNO AGAINST PLAINTIFF SURJIT BAGGA
14 MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD;
Corporation; Ray Hutchins, an individual; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF G.
1S James Krause, an individual; and DOES 1- ANDREW SLATER; AND SUPPORTING
100, inclusive, MEMORANDUM
16
Defendants. Date: July 19, 2018
17 Time: 3:30 p.m.
Dept: 402
18 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey Hamilton
19
20 TO PLAINTIFF, SURJIT BAGGA, AND TO HER ATTORNEY OF
21 RECORD:
22 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 19, 2018 at 3:30 p.m. or as soon
23 thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 402 of the above-entitled Court, located at
24 1130 O Street, Fresno, California 93721, Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK (“Defendant”
25 or “CNB”) will and hereby does, move for an order imposing monetary, issue, evidence, and
26 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff SURJIT BAGGA (“Plaintiff”) and/or her attorney of
27 record, LAW OFFICES OF MAGARITA SALAZAR, APLC for abuse of the discovery
28 process. This Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010,
DOwLI ON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
in a
2023.030, and 2030.290 on the grounds that Plaintiff and her attorney of record engaged
in
pattern and practice of abusing the discovery process and ignored a court order resulting
wasted attorney time.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of
that are
$6,062.00, and issue/evidence/terminating sanctions related to Plaintiff's allegations
addressed in Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories.
This Motion is based on this Notice and Memorandum of Points and
files of
Authorities, the Declaration of G. Andrew Slater and exhibits thereto, the record and
this case, any oral argument of counsel, and on such other evidence as may be presented at the
10 time of hearing.
11
Dated: June 7, 2018 DOWLING AARON JNCORPORATED
12
13
By:
14
15
ZXCITY Tew ater
orneys for Defendant
NATIONAL BANK
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DOWLING! AARON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF G. ANDREW SLATER
I, G. Andrew Slater, declare:
1 T am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all the courts of
the State of California and the attorney of record herein for Defendant City National Bank
(“CNB”).
2 On November 7, 2017, Defendant CNB served its first set of Form
Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories on Plaintiff Surjit Bagga. A copy of those
interrogatories, with proof of service are attached to this declaration as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein. Responses were due on December 12, 2017.
10 3 On December 5, 2017 counsel for Ms. Bagga, Margarita Salazar, sent an
lt email requesting a thirty (30) day extension of time to respond to the discovery, through and
12 including January 4, 2018. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as
13 Exhibit B and incorporated herein. The extension was granted. No responses were received.
14 4. On January 18, 2018, I sent a meet and confer letter to counsel for
15 Ms. Bagga regarding the failure to respond. A true and correct copy of my meet and confer
16 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein.
17 5 On January 26, 2018, Ms. Salazar responded to my meet and confer
18 letter via email promising responses to the discovery no later than February 2, 2018. A true
19 and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated
20 herein.
21 6 On February 5, 2018, I followed up via email regarding the lack of
22 responses. A true and correct copy of my email is attached hereto as Exhibit E and
23 incorporated herein. On February 6, 2018, Ms. Salazar responded and promised responses by
24 February 9, 2018. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit
25 F and incorporated herein.
Ms. Salazar stated she hoped to have the
26 7. On February 12, 2018,
27 responses ready that day, they were not. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is
28 attached hereto as Exhibit G and incorporated herein.
3
RON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
8 On February 14, 2018, I requested a status update. A true and correct
copy of my email is attached hereto as Exhibit H. On that same day, Ms. Salazar indicated she
was still working on responses but was having trouble reaching her client. A true and correct
copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit I and incorporated herein.
9 On February 23, 2018, CNB filed three separate Motions to Compel
Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission (“RFA”), Request for Production (“RFP”),
Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories.
10. On April 16, 2018, in ruling on CNB’s Motions to Compel, this Court
ordered that Plaintiff provide verified discovery responses to Defendant’s RFAs, RFPs, Special
10 Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories, no later than May 16, 2018. To date, Plaintiff has
11 provided no responses, verified or unverified, to the Form Interrogatories or Special
12 interrogatories.
13 11. On May 17, 2018, Ms. Salazar sent me an e-mail stating her client was in
14 the hospital and would therefore need a discovery extension to May 21, 2018. A true and
15 correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit J and incorporated herein.
16 The extension was granted but no responses were received.
17 12. On May 23, 2018, I requested a status update, to which Ms. Salazar
18 responded by informing me that Ms. Bagga was in the emergency room and that responses
19 could not be completed. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as
20 Exhibit K and incorporated herein.
21 13. On May 25, 2018, Ms. Salazar provided Ms. Bagga’s responses to
22 CNB’s RFAs and RFPs. No documents were included, neither the RFA responses nor the RFP
23 responses were properly verified,' and no Form or Special Interrogatory responses were
24 provided.
25 14, Ms, Salazar’s continued requests for discovery extensions, in
26 conjunction with her empty representations that the responses will be provided prior to the
27
1 The verifications were signed by a Randy Bagga who purports to sign as the “Agent and Power of Attorney
28
for Surjit Rani Bagga.” However, no proof of such capacity has been provided. Moreover, if Plaintiff is
incapacitated, counsel should use the proper method to address such a situation.
4
Dow! RON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
extension deadlines and her refusal to properly address the capacity of her client, indicates to
me her intentional and complicit behavior in Plaintiffs non-responsiveness.
15. Based upon Plaintiffs non-responsiveness to CNB’s Form
Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories (and ineffective responses to the RFAs and RFPs),
and her violation of this Court’s order compelling those responses, CNB requests relief in the
form of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record as well as issue,
evidence, and terminating sanctions imposed against Plaintiff in this case.
16. CNB seeks the imposition of a monetary sanction in the amount of
$6,062.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel of record for the sanctions requested in the
10 previously filed Motion to Compel in the amount of $1,934.50," the cost of preparing this
11 Motion for Sanctions ($2,127.50, see accompanying declaration of Mark A. Waller), preparing
12 a Reply to any Opposition (estimated $1000), and the cost to attend a hearing on this Motion
13 (estimated $1000).
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that—)——
15 the foregoing is true and correct.
16 Dated: June 7, 2018
17 B
a Slater
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2 to Compel.
28 See Declaration of G. Andrew Slater in Reply of CNB to Ms. Bagga’s Opposition to Motion
1 hour to draft the Reply to the Opposition , multiplied by
Calculated as 4.3 hours to draft the motion,
Mr, Slater’s hourly rate of $365.00 = $1,934.50.
5
(ON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SERVE A TIMELY RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 16, 2018
COURT ORDER AND, THUS, THE COURT SHOULD MAKE AN ORDER IMPOSING
MONETARY AND ISSUE/EVIDENCE/TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER.
A Court Must Impose Monetary Sanction Absent Specified Findings.
The court may impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030 of the Code
of the
10 of Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who engages in the misuse
ll discovery process. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a).) If a monetary sanction is authorized
sanction
12 by any provision of the Civil Discovery Act, the court shall impose the monetary
or that
13 unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification
to obey
14 other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Ibid.) If a party fails
compelling interrogatory responses, the court may impose monetary sanctions.
15S an order
16 2030.290(c).) Although monetary sanctions against an attorney require a finding that the
has the
17 attorney advised the conduct, the attorney, rather than the party seeking the sanction,
18 burden of proving that the discovery misuse was not based on her advice. (Ghanooni v. Super
19 Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261; Corns y. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 200.)
20 ‘As indicated in the Declaration of G. Andrew Slater, Plaintiff has failed to
this Court’s
21 provide any response to Defendant’s Form and Special interrogatories even after
CCP section
22 April 16, 2018 order compelling the responses. With specific authority under
compelling
23 2030.290 to impose monetary sanctions upon a failure to comply with an order
absent
24 interrogatory responses, the Court must impose a monetary sanction against Plaintiff
25 exceptional circumstances.
f's
26 Ms. Salazar cannot stall discovery for seven months in reliance on Plaintif
discovery responses
27 prolonged medical condition. If Plaintiff cannot physically review the
necessary measures with this
28 and/or sign verifications, than it is Ms. Salazar’s duty to take the
6
DOWLING], AARON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Court to address that issue. Instead, Ms. Salazar continues to maintain that she can have
discovery responses completed within Defendant’s extension deadlines, after which she
inevitably fails to provide the responses. This is unethical behavior that has wasted
Defendant’s money, currently manifesting in the preparation of this Motion. Therefore,
Defendant requests that this Court impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff's attorney of
record.
Defendant will incur an estimated $4,127.50 in preparing this Motion,
submitting a Reply to Opposition, and attending the hearing on this Motion, in addition to the
$1,934.50 in reasonable fees to obtain this Court’s April 16, 2018 order compelling Plaintiff's
10 discovery responses. Therefore, Defendant requests that the Court impose a monetary sanction
1 of $6,062.00 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record.
12 B Issue, Evidence, and Terminating Sanctions Are Authorized To Be Imposed
Against A Party Who Fails To Obey An Order Compelling Discovery.
13
14 To the extent specifically authorized, a court may impose the following
15 sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process:
16 1 Issue sanction ordering that (i) certain facts be deemed established in
17 accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the discovery misuse or (ii) the
18 party engaging in the discovery misuse be prohibited from supporting or opposing a particular
19 claim or defense (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(c));
20 2 Evidence sanction prohibiting the party misusing the discovery process
21 from introducing particular matters in evidence (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(b); or
22 3 Terminating sanction by (i) an order striking out the pertinent part of the
23 pleading, (ii) an order staying proceedings until the discovery order is obeyed, (iii) an order
24 dismissing the action, or (iv) an order rendering judgment by default. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §
25 2023.030(d)(1)-(4).)
26 Disobeying a court order to provide discovery is a clear misuse of the discovery
for a
27 process, and courts often consider issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions proper
28 failure to comply with such an order. (Jn re Marriage of Michaely (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th
7
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
802, 809; see New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408,
1426.) Moreover, the court is specifically authorized to impose issue, evidence, and
termination sanctions against a party that fails to comply with an order compelling responses to
interrogatories. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).)
Issue and evidence sanctions are appropriate when a party repeatedly and
willfully fails to provide relevant, non-privileged evidence, even if the sanction is determinative
in terminating the plaintiffs case. The rationale behind this rule is “that a persistent refusal to
comply with an order for the production of evidence is tantamount to an admission that the
disobedient party really has no meritorious claim.” (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
10 (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; see e.g. Wells Fargo Bank v. Dileonardo (1994) 22
ll Cal.App.4th 873, 878-79 [issue sanctions properly applied to beneficiary’s objections to
12 trustee’s account after beneficiary refused to comply with court order compelling production of
13 documents].)
14 After seven months have elapsed, after violation of this Court’s April 16, 2018
15 order, and despite multiple extensions given by Defendant both before and after that order,
16 Plaintiff has failed to provide a single response to any of the Form or Special Interrogatories.
17 As exemplified in Wells Fargo Bank and addressed in CCP section 2030.290(c), Plaintiff's
18 violation of this Court’s order warrants the imposition of issue/evidence/terminating sanctions
19 in addition to monetary sanctions.
20 Defendant’s Special and Form Interrogatories ask plain questions related to
21 specific factual allegations raised by Plaintiff in her Complaint as to purported defects in the
22 assignment, endorsement, and transfer of a loan at issue, and also in regard to Plaintiff's claims
23 that she timely paid on various obligations. Because Plaintiff has provided no response or
24 objection to these material and straightforward interrogatories, Defendant also requests that
25 Plaintiff be prevented from supporting claims or providing evidence related to her allegations
26 addressed by the Special and Form Interrogatories.
27 In addition, Plaintiff claims millions of dollars in damages and alleges that
28 Defendant engaged in serious and intentional wrongdoing. Despite the egregious nature of
8
DO" NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
these allegations, no verified evidence has thus far been provided. Defendant therefore
ng
requests, at the very least, that Plaintiff be prevented from supporting claims and presenti
was
evidence that relate to any fraud or other intentional wrongdoing that Plaintiff claims
committed by Defendant. These allegations include fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and
purported violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
Overall, Plaintiff's persistent failure to provide a response to Defendant’s
to an
inquiries on the claims addressed in the Form and Special Interrogatories is tantamount
admission that the claims lack any merit, warranting the imposition of issue, evidence, and
terminating sanctions. Plaintiff's recent violation of this Court’s order confirms this conclusion
10 and provides strong grounds for the imposition of such sanctions under California law.
11 C. Conclusion.
12 Based on the above, and any further argument or evidence presented at hearing,
13 City National Bank respectfully requests the Court, in addition to renewing its order compelling
14 discovery, impose monetary sanctions in the amount $6,062.00 on Plaintiff and her attorney of
y
15 record as well as issue/evidence/terminating sanctions on Plaintiff for the misuse of discover
16 and failure to comply with a court order.
=
17
Dated: June 7, 2018 DOWLING AARONANCORPO
18
19
By:
20 ‘ew Slater
6rney for Defendant
21 CITY NATIONAL BANK
22 014939-000004-02427589.doc-1
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
DO" :ON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Exhibit A
G. Andrew Slater #238126
DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED
8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor
P.O. Box 28902
Fresno, California 93729-8902
Tel: (559) 432-4500
Fax: (559) 432-4590
aslater@dowlingaaron.com
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY NATIONAL BANK
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
11 SURJIT BAGGA, Case No. 16CECG03336
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO
13 Vv. PLAINTIFF SURJIT BAGGA, SET ONE
14 CITY NATIONAL BANK, FRESNO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California
15 Corporation; Ray Hutchins, an individual,;
James Krause, an individual; and DOES 1-
16 100, inclusive,
17 Defendants.
tite
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK.
20 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff SURJIT BAGGA
21 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
22 Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK (“CNB”) requests that Plaintiff SURJIT
23 BAGGA respond to the following Special Interrogatories, Set One, pursuant to California Code
24 of Civil Procedure sections 2030.010 et seq., under oath, within 30 days.
25 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
26 Please furnish in your answers to the following interrogatories such information
27 which is known personally by you and/or which is reasonably available to you, or any person,
28 as defined herein, acting on your behalf. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and
pow
DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT
BAGGA, SET ON.
fully unless objected to, in which even the reasons for the objection shall be stated in lieu of or
in conjunction with any answer. When, after a reasonable and thorough investigation using due
diligence you are not able to answer any interrogatory, or any part thereof, on the ground of
lack of information available to you, specify in full and complete detail why the information is
not available to you and what has been done to locate the information.
For the purpose of these interrogatories, wherever necessary to ensure
completeness or accuracy, words importing the singular include the plural, words importing the
plural include the singular, and words importing the masculine include the feminine.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
10 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 15 of the
11 complaint that the PROPERTY is a “luxury apartment complex.”
12 As used herein, “YOU” and/or “YOUR” shall mean plaintiff Surjit Bagga, her
13 agents, attorneys, accountants and representatives or anyone acting for or on her behalf.
14 As used herein “PROPERTY” shall mean the real property located at 5358-5376
15 N. 6" Street, Fresno, California 93710.
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
17 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 19 of the
18 complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial Capital Bank was not
19 endorsed.
20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
21 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
22 paragraph 19 of the complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial
23 Capital Bank was not endorsed.
24 As used herein, the terms “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS?” shall mean and
25 include any writing and/or recording as defined by Evidence Code section 250 and shall also
26 include without limitation, all originals, duplicates, non-identical copies, drafts, working
27 papers, records of communications, post-its, photographs, computer programs, or data and
28 machine readable data stored on cards, discs, magnetic tapes or other electronic and/or digital
DOWLING AARON
DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT
AGGA, SET ONE
also includes information stored on any flash drive, social
stored media. This definition
, Skype,
networking website or database, web-based e-mail address, blog, Twitter, You-tube
and/or text message.
IDENTIFY with respect to a DOCUMENT or DOCUMENTS, means to set
n of the
forth the full title of the document, the date of the document, and who is in possessio
original.
SPECIAL
S ———K wTOGATORY
INTERR NO. 4:
Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
in paragraph 19 of the complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial
10 Capital Bank was not endorsed.
11 As used herein, “PERSON” or “PERSONS” means a natural person, a firm,
12 association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, or public entity.
13 IDENTIFY with respect to “PERSON” or “PERSONS” means to state the name,
14 address and telephone number.
15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
16 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 19 of the
17 complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial Capital Bank was not
18 properly assigned.
19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
20 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
21 paragraph 19 of the complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial
22 Capital Bank was not properly assigned.
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
24 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
25 in paragraph 19 of the complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial
26 Capital Bank was not properly assigned.
27 INTERROGAT
SPECIAL EC
SP NEE IA ORYLNO. 8:
28 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 24 of the
DOWL!
DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT
AGGA, SET ON!
complaint that YOU mailed the required payments under YOUR loan with Imperial Capital
Bank on or before the 10" day of month by overnight mail.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
paragraph 24 of the complaint that YOU mailed the required payments under YOUR loan with
Imperial Capital Bank on or before the 10" day of month by overnight mail.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
8 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
9 in paragraph 24 of the complaint that YOU mailed the required payments under YOUR loan
10 with Imperial Capital Bank on or before the 10" day of month by overnight mail.
il SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
12 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 25 of the
13 complaint that from the date of the purchase of the PROPERTY YOU “never missed a
14 mortgage payment.”
15 SPECL INTERROG., YY NO. 12:
16 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
17 paragraph 25 of the complaint that from the date of the purchase of the PROPERTY YOU
18 “never missed a mortgage payment.”
19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
20 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
21 in paragraph 25. of the complaint that from the date of the purchase of the PROPERTY YOU
22 “never missed a mortgage payment.”
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
24 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 28 of the
25 complaint that “at the time the FDIC entered into the Purchase and Assumption Agreement
26 with City National Bank the Note has not been endorsed.”
27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
28 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
DOWLING
| AARON
! DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK'S SP.ECIAL INTE! RROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT
A, SET
paragraph 28 of the complaint that “at the time the FDIC entered into the Purchase and
Assumption Agreement with City National Bank the Note has not been endorsed.”
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
in paragraph 28 of the complaint that “at the time the FDIC entered into the Purchase and
Assumption Agreement with City National Bank the Note has not been endorsed.”
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 28 of the
9 complaint that “Because the Note had not been endorsed at the time of this agreement, the Note
10 was not in fact transferred.”
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
12 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
13 paragraph 28 of the complaint that “Because the Note had not been endorsed at the time of this
14 agreement, the Note was not in fact transferred.”
15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
16 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
17 in paragraph 28 of the complaint that “Because the Note had not been endorsed at the time of
18 this agreement, the Note was not in fact transferred.”
19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
20 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 31 of the
21 complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank to YOU was
22 fraudulently endorsed.
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
24 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
25 paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank
26 to YOU was fraudulently endorsed.
27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
28 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
DOWLING] AARON
sas DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT
BAGGA, SET ON!
in paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital
Bank to YOU was fraudulently endorsed.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 31 of the
complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank to YOU was void
6 or voidable on its face.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank
10 to YOU was void or voidable on its face.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
12 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
13 in paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital
14 Bank to YOU was void or voidable on its face.
15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
16 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 36 of the
17 complaint that in order for the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank to YOU
18 to be properly transferred from the FDIC to City National Bank, it must be endorsed and
19 assigned,
20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
21 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
22 paragraph 36 of the complaint that in order for the note memorializing the loan from Imperial
23 Capital Bank to YOU to be properly transferred from the FDIC to City National Bank, it must
24 be endorsed and assigned.
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
26 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention.
27 in paragraph 36 of the complaint that in order for the note memorializing the loan from
28 Imperial Capital Bank to YOU to be properly transferred from the FDIC to City National Bank,
DOWLING] AARON
DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT
A GGA, SET O!
it must be endorsed and assigned.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
Please state all applicable laws or statutes that support YOUR contention in
paragraph 36 of the complaint that in order for the note memorializing the loan from Imperial
5 Capital Bank to YOU to be properly transferred from the FDIC to City National Bank, it must
be endorsed and assigned.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 37 of the
complaint that the assignment of the Deed of Trust securing Imperial Capital Bank’s loan to
10 YOU by the FDIC to City National Bank is invalid, void or voidable.
i SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
12 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
13 paragraph 37 of the complaint that the assignment of the Deed of Trust securing Imperial
14 Capital Bank’s loan to YOU by the FDIC to City National Bank is invalid, void or voidable.
is SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
16 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
17 in paragraph 37 of the complaint that the assignment of the Deed of Trust securing Imperial
18 Capital Bank’s loan to YOU by the FDIC to City National Bank is invalid, void or voidable.
19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
20 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 42 of the
21 complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins “developed a scheme to oust Plaintiff
22 as the owner of the building because they did not approve of Plaintiff and her family, who are
23 of Indian descent, being the new owners.”
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
25 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
26 paragraph 42 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins “developed a
27 scheme to oust Plaintiff as the owner of the building because they did not approve of Plaintiff
28 and her family, who are of Indian descent, being the new owners.”
DOWLING Aa
DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT
AGGA, SET ON
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
in paragraph 42 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins “developed a
scheme to oust Plaintiff as the owner of the building because they did not approve of Plaintiff
and her family, who are of Indian descent, being the new owners.”
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 43 of the
complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins took deliberate steps to undermine
9 and sabotage YOUR ownership interest in the PROPERTY.
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
1 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in
12 paragraph 43 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins took deliberate
13 steps to undermine and sabotage YOUR ownership interest in the PROPERTY.
14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
15 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention
16 in paragraph 43 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins took deliberate
17 steps to undermine and sabotage YOUR ownership interest in the PROPERTY.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
19 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 45 of the
20 complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins “cooperated with CITY NATIONAL
21 BANK to inflate the purported damage and necessary repairs for the building in order to
22 fabricate excessively large amounts in repairs purportedly required for the building by hiring a
23 property inspector that was tasked with providing an estimate a cost of repair that exceeded
24 over $400,000 in purported repair costs.”
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
26 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS
Preview
G. Andrew Slater , Esq. (SBN 238126) DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED E-FILED 8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor 6/11/2018 8:34 AM P.O. Box 28902 Fresno, California 93729-8902 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Telephone: (559) 432-4500 By: R. Faccinto, Deputy Facsimile: (559) 432-4590 aslater@dowlingaaron.com Attorneys for Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 SURJIT BAGGA, Case No. 16CECG03336 11 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR 12 ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY v SANCTIONS AND ISSUE, EVIDENCE, 13 AND/OR TERMINATING SANCTIONS CITY NATIONAL BANK, FRESNO AGAINST PLAINTIFF SURJIT BAGGA 14 MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD; Corporation; Ray Hutchins, an individual; SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF G. 1S James Krause, an individual; and DOES 1- ANDREW SLATER; AND SUPPORTING 100, inclusive, MEMORANDUM 16 Defendants. Date: July 19, 2018 17 Time: 3:30 p.m. Dept: 402 18 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey Hamilton 19 20 TO PLAINTIFF, SURJIT BAGGA, AND TO HER ATTORNEY OF 21 RECORD: 22 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 19, 2018 at 3:30 p.m. or as soon 23 thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 402 of the above-entitled Court, located at 24 1130 O Street, Fresno, California 93721, Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK (“Defendant” 25 or “CNB”) will and hereby does, move for an order imposing monetary, issue, evidence, and 26 terminating sanctions against Plaintiff SURJIT BAGGA (“Plaintiff”) and/or her attorney of 27 record, LAW OFFICES OF MAGARITA SALAZAR, APLC for abuse of the discovery 28 process. This Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, DOwLI ON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS in a 2023.030, and 2030.290 on the grounds that Plaintiff and her attorney of record engaged in pattern and practice of abusing the discovery process and ignored a court order resulting wasted attorney time. Based on the foregoing, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of that are $6,062.00, and issue/evidence/terminating sanctions related to Plaintiff's allegations addressed in Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. This Motion is based on this Notice and Memorandum of Points and files of Authorities, the Declaration of G. Andrew Slater and exhibits thereto, the record and this case, any oral argument of counsel, and on such other evidence as may be presented at the 10 time of hearing. 11 Dated: June 7, 2018 DOWLING AARON JNCORPORATED 12 13 By: 14 15 ZXCITY Tew ater orneys for Defendant NATIONAL BANK 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DOWLING! AARON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF G. ANDREW SLATER I, G. Andrew Slater, declare: 1 T am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all the courts of the State of California and the attorney of record herein for Defendant City National Bank (“CNB”). 2 On November 7, 2017, Defendant CNB served its first set of Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories on Plaintiff Surjit Bagga. A copy of those interrogatories, with proof of service are attached to this declaration as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. Responses were due on December 12, 2017. 10 3 On December 5, 2017 counsel for Ms. Bagga, Margarita Salazar, sent an lt email requesting a thirty (30) day extension of time to respond to the discovery, through and 12 including January 4, 2018. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as 13 Exhibit B and incorporated herein. The extension was granted. No responses were received. 14 4. On January 18, 2018, I sent a meet and confer letter to counsel for 15 Ms. Bagga regarding the failure to respond. A true and correct copy of my meet and confer 16 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein. 17 5 On January 26, 2018, Ms. Salazar responded to my meet and confer 18 letter via email promising responses to the discovery no later than February 2, 2018. A true 19 and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated 20 herein. 21 6 On February 5, 2018, I followed up via email regarding the lack of 22 responses. A true and correct copy of my email is attached hereto as Exhibit E and 23 incorporated herein. On February 6, 2018, Ms. Salazar responded and promised responses by 24 February 9, 2018. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit 25 F and incorporated herein. Ms. Salazar stated she hoped to have the 26 7. On February 12, 2018, 27 responses ready that day, they were not. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is 28 attached hereto as Exhibit G and incorporated herein. 3 RON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 8 On February 14, 2018, I requested a status update. A true and correct copy of my email is attached hereto as Exhibit H. On that same day, Ms. Salazar indicated she was still working on responses but was having trouble reaching her client. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit I and incorporated herein. 9 On February 23, 2018, CNB filed three separate Motions to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission (“RFA”), Request for Production (“RFP”), Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories. 10. On April 16, 2018, in ruling on CNB’s Motions to Compel, this Court ordered that Plaintiff provide verified discovery responses to Defendant’s RFAs, RFPs, Special 10 Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories, no later than May 16, 2018. To date, Plaintiff has 11 provided no responses, verified or unverified, to the Form Interrogatories or Special 12 interrogatories. 13 11. On May 17, 2018, Ms. Salazar sent me an e-mail stating her client was in 14 the hospital and would therefore need a discovery extension to May 21, 2018. A true and 15 correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit J and incorporated herein. 16 The extension was granted but no responses were received. 17 12. On May 23, 2018, I requested a status update, to which Ms. Salazar 18 responded by informing me that Ms. Bagga was in the emergency room and that responses 19 could not be completed. A true and correct copy of Ms. Salazar’s email is attached hereto as 20 Exhibit K and incorporated herein. 21 13. On May 25, 2018, Ms. Salazar provided Ms. Bagga’s responses to 22 CNB’s RFAs and RFPs. No documents were included, neither the RFA responses nor the RFP 23 responses were properly verified,' and no Form or Special Interrogatory responses were 24 provided. 25 14, Ms, Salazar’s continued requests for discovery extensions, in 26 conjunction with her empty representations that the responses will be provided prior to the 27 1 The verifications were signed by a Randy Bagga who purports to sign as the “Agent and Power of Attorney 28 for Surjit Rani Bagga.” However, no proof of such capacity has been provided. Moreover, if Plaintiff is incapacitated, counsel should use the proper method to address such a situation. 4 Dow! RON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS extension deadlines and her refusal to properly address the capacity of her client, indicates to me her intentional and complicit behavior in Plaintiffs non-responsiveness. 15. Based upon Plaintiffs non-responsiveness to CNB’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories (and ineffective responses to the RFAs and RFPs), and her violation of this Court’s order compelling those responses, CNB requests relief in the form of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record as well as issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions imposed against Plaintiff in this case. 16. CNB seeks the imposition of a monetary sanction in the amount of $6,062.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel of record for the sanctions requested in the 10 previously filed Motion to Compel in the amount of $1,934.50," the cost of preparing this 11 Motion for Sanctions ($2,127.50, see accompanying declaration of Mark A. Waller), preparing 12 a Reply to any Opposition (estimated $1000), and the cost to attend a hearing on this Motion 13 (estimated $1000). 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that—)—— 15 the foregoing is true and correct. 16 Dated: June 7, 2018 17 B a Slater 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 to Compel. 28 See Declaration of G. Andrew Slater in Reply of CNB to Ms. Bagga’s Opposition to Motion 1 hour to draft the Reply to the Opposition , multiplied by Calculated as 4.3 hours to draft the motion, Mr, Slater’s hourly rate of $365.00 = $1,934.50. 5 (ON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SERVE A TIMELY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S APRIL 16, 2018 COURT ORDER AND, THUS, THE COURT SHOULD MAKE AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY AND ISSUE/EVIDENCE/TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER. A Court Must Impose Monetary Sanction Absent Specified Findings. The court may impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030 of the Code of the 10 of Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who engages in the misuse ll discovery process. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a).) If a monetary sanction is authorized sanction 12 by any provision of the Civil Discovery Act, the court shall impose the monetary or that 13 unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification to obey 14 other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Ibid.) If a party fails compelling interrogatory responses, the court may impose monetary sanctions. 15S an order 16 2030.290(c).) Although monetary sanctions against an attorney require a finding that the has the 17 attorney advised the conduct, the attorney, rather than the party seeking the sanction, 18 burden of proving that the discovery misuse was not based on her advice. (Ghanooni v. Super 19 Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261; Corns y. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 200.) 20 ‘As indicated in the Declaration of G. Andrew Slater, Plaintiff has failed to this Court’s 21 provide any response to Defendant’s Form and Special interrogatories even after CCP section 22 April 16, 2018 order compelling the responses. With specific authority under compelling 23 2030.290 to impose monetary sanctions upon a failure to comply with an order absent 24 interrogatory responses, the Court must impose a monetary sanction against Plaintiff 25 exceptional circumstances. f's 26 Ms. Salazar cannot stall discovery for seven months in reliance on Plaintif discovery responses 27 prolonged medical condition. If Plaintiff cannot physically review the necessary measures with this 28 and/or sign verifications, than it is Ms. Salazar’s duty to take the 6 DOWLING], AARON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Court to address that issue. Instead, Ms. Salazar continues to maintain that she can have discovery responses completed within Defendant’s extension deadlines, after which she inevitably fails to provide the responses. This is unethical behavior that has wasted Defendant’s money, currently manifesting in the preparation of this Motion. Therefore, Defendant requests that this Court impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff's attorney of record. Defendant will incur an estimated $4,127.50 in preparing this Motion, submitting a Reply to Opposition, and attending the hearing on this Motion, in addition to the $1,934.50 in reasonable fees to obtain this Court’s April 16, 2018 order compelling Plaintiff's 10 discovery responses. Therefore, Defendant requests that the Court impose a monetary sanction 1 of $6,062.00 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record. 12 B Issue, Evidence, and Terminating Sanctions Are Authorized To Be Imposed Against A Party Who Fails To Obey An Order Compelling Discovery. 13 14 To the extent specifically authorized, a court may impose the following 15 sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process: 16 1 Issue sanction ordering that (i) certain facts be deemed established in 17 accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the discovery misuse or (ii) the 18 party engaging in the discovery misuse be prohibited from supporting or opposing a particular 19 claim or defense (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(c)); 20 2 Evidence sanction prohibiting the party misusing the discovery process 21 from introducing particular matters in evidence (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(b); or 22 3 Terminating sanction by (i) an order striking out the pertinent part of the 23 pleading, (ii) an order staying proceedings until the discovery order is obeyed, (iii) an order 24 dismissing the action, or (iv) an order rendering judgment by default. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 25 2023.030(d)(1)-(4).) 26 Disobeying a court order to provide discovery is a clear misuse of the discovery for a 27 process, and courts often consider issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions proper 28 failure to comply with such an order. (Jn re Marriage of Michaely (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 802, 809; see New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408, 1426.) Moreover, the court is specifically authorized to impose issue, evidence, and termination sanctions against a party that fails to comply with an order compelling responses to interrogatories. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).) Issue and evidence sanctions are appropriate when a party repeatedly and willfully fails to provide relevant, non-privileged evidence, even if the sanction is determinative in terminating the plaintiffs case. The rationale behind this rule is “that a persistent refusal to comply with an order for the production of evidence is tantamount to an admission that the disobedient party really has no meritorious claim.” (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. 10 (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; see e.g. Wells Fargo Bank v. Dileonardo (1994) 22 ll Cal.App.4th 873, 878-79 [issue sanctions properly applied to beneficiary’s objections to 12 trustee’s account after beneficiary refused to comply with court order compelling production of 13 documents].) 14 After seven months have elapsed, after violation of this Court’s April 16, 2018 15 order, and despite multiple extensions given by Defendant both before and after that order, 16 Plaintiff has failed to provide a single response to any of the Form or Special Interrogatories. 17 As exemplified in Wells Fargo Bank and addressed in CCP section 2030.290(c), Plaintiff's 18 violation of this Court’s order warrants the imposition of issue/evidence/terminating sanctions 19 in addition to monetary sanctions. 20 Defendant’s Special and Form Interrogatories ask plain questions related to 21 specific factual allegations raised by Plaintiff in her Complaint as to purported defects in the 22 assignment, endorsement, and transfer of a loan at issue, and also in regard to Plaintiff's claims 23 that she timely paid on various obligations. Because Plaintiff has provided no response or 24 objection to these material and straightforward interrogatories, Defendant also requests that 25 Plaintiff be prevented from supporting claims or providing evidence related to her allegations 26 addressed by the Special and Form Interrogatories. 27 In addition, Plaintiff claims millions of dollars in damages and alleges that 28 Defendant engaged in serious and intentional wrongdoing. Despite the egregious nature of 8 DO" NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS these allegations, no verified evidence has thus far been provided. Defendant therefore ng requests, at the very least, that Plaintiff be prevented from supporting claims and presenti was evidence that relate to any fraud or other intentional wrongdoing that Plaintiff claims committed by Defendant. These allegations include fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and purported violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Overall, Plaintiff's persistent failure to provide a response to Defendant’s to an inquiries on the claims addressed in the Form and Special Interrogatories is tantamount admission that the claims lack any merit, warranting the imposition of issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions. Plaintiff's recent violation of this Court’s order confirms this conclusion 10 and provides strong grounds for the imposition of such sanctions under California law. 11 C. Conclusion. 12 Based on the above, and any further argument or evidence presented at hearing, 13 City National Bank respectfully requests the Court, in addition to renewing its order compelling 14 discovery, impose monetary sanctions in the amount $6,062.00 on Plaintiff and her attorney of y 15 record as well as issue/evidence/terminating sanctions on Plaintiff for the misuse of discover 16 and failure to comply with a court order. = 17 Dated: June 7, 2018 DOWLING AARONANCORPO 18 19 By: 20 ‘ew Slater 6rney for Defendant 21 CITY NATIONAL BANK 22 014939-000004-02427589.doc-1 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 DO" :ON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Exhibit A G. Andrew Slater #238126 DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED 8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor P.O. Box 28902 Fresno, California 93729-8902 Tel: (559) 432-4500 Fax: (559) 432-4590 aslater@dowlingaaron.com Attorneys for Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 11 SURJIT BAGGA, Case No. 16CECG03336 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO 13 Vv. PLAINTIFF SURJIT BAGGA, SET ONE 14 CITY NATIONAL BANK, FRESNO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California 15 Corporation; Ray Hutchins, an individual,; James Krause, an individual; and DOES 1- 16 100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. tite 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK. 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff SURJIT BAGGA 21 SET NUMBER: ONE (1) 22 Defendant CITY NATIONAL BANK (“CNB”) requests that Plaintiff SURJIT 23 BAGGA respond to the following Special Interrogatories, Set One, pursuant to California Code 24 of Civil Procedure sections 2030.010 et seq., under oath, within 30 days. 25 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 26 Please furnish in your answers to the following interrogatories such information 27 which is known personally by you and/or which is reasonably available to you, or any person, 28 as defined herein, acting on your behalf. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and pow DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT BAGGA, SET ON. fully unless objected to, in which even the reasons for the objection shall be stated in lieu of or in conjunction with any answer. When, after a reasonable and thorough investigation using due diligence you are not able to answer any interrogatory, or any part thereof, on the ground of lack of information available to you, specify in full and complete detail why the information is not available to you and what has been done to locate the information. For the purpose of these interrogatories, wherever necessary to ensure completeness or accuracy, words importing the singular include the plural, words importing the plural include the singular, and words importing the masculine include the feminine. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 10 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 15 of the 11 complaint that the PROPERTY is a “luxury apartment complex.” 12 As used herein, “YOU” and/or “YOUR” shall mean plaintiff Surjit Bagga, her 13 agents, attorneys, accountants and representatives or anyone acting for or on her behalf. 14 As used herein “PROPERTY” shall mean the real property located at 5358-5376 15 N. 6" Street, Fresno, California 93710. 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 17 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 19 of the 18 complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial Capital Bank was not 19 endorsed. 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 21 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 22 paragraph 19 of the complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial 23 Capital Bank was not endorsed. 24 As used herein, the terms “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS?” shall mean and 25 include any writing and/or recording as defined by Evidence Code section 250 and shall also 26 include without limitation, all originals, duplicates, non-identical copies, drafts, working 27 papers, records of communications, post-its, photographs, computer programs, or data and 28 machine readable data stored on cards, discs, magnetic tapes or other electronic and/or digital DOWLING AARON DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT AGGA, SET ONE also includes information stored on any flash drive, social stored media. This definition , Skype, networking website or database, web-based e-mail address, blog, Twitter, You-tube and/or text message. IDENTIFY with respect to a DOCUMENT or DOCUMENTS, means to set n of the forth the full title of the document, the date of the document, and who is in possessio original. SPECIAL S ———K wTOGATORY INTERR NO. 4: Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 19 of the complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial 10 Capital Bank was not endorsed. 11 As used herein, “PERSON” or “PERSONS” means a natural person, a firm, 12 association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, or public entity. 13 IDENTIFY with respect to “PERSON” or “PERSONS” means to state the name, 14 address and telephone number. 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 16 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 19 of the 17 complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial Capital Bank was not 18 properly assigned. 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 20 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 21 paragraph 19 of the complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial 22 Capital Bank was not properly assigned. 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 24 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention 25 in paragraph 19 of the complaint that the Deed of Trust securing YOUR loan from Imperial 26 Capital Bank was not properly assigned. 27 INTERROGAT SPECIAL EC SP NEE IA ORYLNO. 8: 28 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 24 of the DOWL! DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT AGGA, SET ON! complaint that YOU mailed the required payments under YOUR loan with Imperial Capital Bank on or before the 10" day of month by overnight mail. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in paragraph 24 of the complaint that YOU mailed the required payments under YOUR loan with Imperial Capital Bank on or before the 10" day of month by overnight mail. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 8 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention 9 in paragraph 24 of the complaint that YOU mailed the required payments under YOUR loan 10 with Imperial Capital Bank on or before the 10" day of month by overnight mail. il SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 12 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 25 of the 13 complaint that from the date of the purchase of the PROPERTY YOU “never missed a 14 mortgage payment.” 15 SPECL INTERROG., YY NO. 12: 16 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 17 paragraph 25 of the complaint that from the date of the purchase of the PROPERTY YOU 18 “never missed a mortgage payment.” 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 20 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention 21 in paragraph 25. of the complaint that from the date of the purchase of the PROPERTY YOU 22 “never missed a mortgage payment.” 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 24 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 28 of the 25 complaint that “at the time the FDIC entered into the Purchase and Assumption Agreement 26 with City National Bank the Note has not been endorsed.” 27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 28 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in DOWLING | AARON ! DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK'S SP.ECIAL INTE! RROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT A, SET paragraph 28 of the complaint that “at the time the FDIC entered into the Purchase and Assumption Agreement with City National Bank the Note has not been endorsed.” SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 28 of the complaint that “at the time the FDIC entered into the Purchase and Assumption Agreement with City National Bank the Note has not been endorsed.” SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 28 of the 9 complaint that “Because the Note had not been endorsed at the time of this agreement, the Note 10 was not in fact transferred.” 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 12 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 13 paragraph 28 of the complaint that “Because the Note had not been endorsed at the time of this 14 agreement, the Note was not in fact transferred.” 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 16 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention 17 in paragraph 28 of the complaint that “Because the Note had not been endorsed at the time of 18 this agreement, the Note was not in fact transferred.” 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 20 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 31 of the 21 complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank to YOU was 22 fraudulently endorsed. 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 24 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 25 paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank 26 to YOU was fraudulently endorsed. 27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 28 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention DOWLING] AARON sas DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT BAGGA, SET ON! in paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank to YOU was fraudulently endorsed. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank to YOU was void 6 or voidable on its face. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank 10 to YOU was void or voidable on its face. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 12 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention 13 in paragraph 31 of the complaint that the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital 14 Bank to YOU was void or voidable on its face. 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 16 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 36 of the 17 complaint that in order for the note memorializing the loan from Imperial Capital Bank to YOU 18 to be properly transferred from the FDIC to City National Bank, it must be endorsed and 19 assigned, 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 21 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 22 paragraph 36 of the complaint that in order for the note memorializing the loan from Imperial 23 Capital Bank to YOU to be properly transferred from the FDIC to City National Bank, it must 24 be endorsed and assigned. 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 26 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention. 27 in paragraph 36 of the complaint that in order for the note memorializing the loan from 28 Imperial Capital Bank to YOU to be properly transferred from the FDIC to City National Bank, DOWLING] AARON DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT A GGA, SET O! it must be endorsed and assigned. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Please state all applicable laws or statutes that support YOUR contention in paragraph 36 of the complaint that in order for the note memorializing the loan from Imperial 5 Capital Bank to YOU to be properly transferred from the FDIC to City National Bank, it must be endorsed and assigned. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 37 of the complaint that the assignment of the Deed of Trust securing Imperial Capital Bank’s loan to 10 YOU by the FDIC to City National Bank is invalid, void or voidable. i SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 12 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 13 paragraph 37 of the complaint that the assignment of the Deed of Trust securing Imperial 14 Capital Bank’s loan to YOU by the FDIC to City National Bank is invalid, void or voidable. is SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 16 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention 17 in paragraph 37 of the complaint that the assignment of the Deed of Trust securing Imperial 18 Capital Bank’s loan to YOU by the FDIC to City National Bank is invalid, void or voidable. 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 20 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 42 of the 21 complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins “developed a scheme to oust Plaintiff 22 as the owner of the building because they did not approve of Plaintiff and her family, who are 23 of Indian descent, being the new owners.” 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 25 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 26 paragraph 42 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins “developed a 27 scheme to oust Plaintiff as the owner of the building because they did not approve of Plaintiff 28 and her family, who are of Indian descent, being the new owners.” DOWLING Aa DEFENDANT CITY NATIONAL BANK’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF SURJIT AGGA, SET ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention in paragraph 42 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins “developed a scheme to oust Plaintiff as the owner of the building because they did not approve of Plaintiff and her family, who are of Indian descent, being the new owners.” SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 43 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins took deliberate steps to undermine 9 and sabotage YOUR ownership interest in the PROPERTY. 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 1 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in 12 paragraph 43 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins took deliberate 13 steps to undermine and sabotage YOUR ownership interest in the PROPERTY. 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38: 15 Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge supporting YOUR contention 16 in paragraph 43 of the complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins took deliberate 17 steps to undermine and sabotage YOUR ownership interest in the PROPERTY. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 19 Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in paragraph 45 of the 20 complaint that defendants James Kruse and Ray Hutchins “cooperated with CITY NATIONAL 21 BANK to inflate the purported damage and necessary repairs for the building in order to 22 fabricate excessively large amounts in repairs purportedly required for the building by hiring a 23 property inspector that was tasked with providing an estimate a cost of repair that exceeded 24 over $400,000 in purported repair costs.” 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40: 26 Please IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS