On September 21, 2022 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Vega, Ricardo Calvillo,
and
Does 1 Through 20 Inclusive,
Vela, Helida,
for Auto PI/PD/WD $10,000.01 - $25,000 Limited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
v BY FAX V
F I L E D
SBN 306854
Shingo Andrew Amano, Esq., StéPoEngvR
839$; ggogfikgoolsgm
MARTINEZ, DIETERICH & ZARCONE LEGAL GROUP SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Physical Address: 333 S. Anita Drive, Ste. 625
Orange, CA 92868
Mailing Address: 11900 North 26th St., Ste. 200
Edinburg, TX 78539
File No.272186456
I
3y
APR
Electronic Service: legal—maiI((Dfredloya.com; shingo.amano@fredloya.®mna_
T: (714) 450-1731 F: (714) 634-3705
,x%
SUPERIOR COURT
RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT
m
1 5 mu
':
IERLem, DEPUTY
Attorney for Defendant,
8303 Haven Avenue
HELIDA VELA
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
W
10
11
Case No. CIVSBZZZO649
RICARDO CALVILLO VEGA, an individual, Limited
12
Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to:
l3
Honorable
14 v. DepartmenW
15 HELIDA VELA, anindividual, and DOES 1 t1 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION To
16
MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFFS'
Defendant. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
17 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;
18 DECLARATION 0F SHINGO A. AMANO
19 Complaint Filed: 09/21/2022
20
21
22
TO THE COURT, ALL INTERESTED PARTIES,
W
Trial Date: 01/13/2025
AND TO
93/2?
A
ATTORNEYS
f
THEIR
I
RECORD:
23
Defendant, Helida Vela, opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the following grounds:
24
1. Defendant responded to the Discovery Requests for Production of Documents sent by
25
Plaintifi' and served the verified responses to Plaintifl’s counsel on April
/
9, 2024.
26
27
__
28
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES T0 REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION 0F SHINGO A.
AMANO
x. BY FAX V
ARGUMENT
I. ALL DISCOVERY RESPONSES ILAVE BEEN SERVED, S0 THE MOTIONS T0
COMPEL PRODUCTION ARE ALL MOOT
As attached as exhibit on this opposition, the verification form signed by the defendant regarding
the discovery requests served by Plaintifi’s counsel have been served on April 9, 2024.
Defendant’s discovery responses were sent to Plaintifl‘ on April 9, 2024. As Plaintifl‘ is now in
possession of the requested amended discovery responses, without objections, complete with signed
verifications, Plaintifl’s motion to compel discovery responses is moot.
10
Due to the delay in Defendant’s response to Plaintifi‘s discovery requests, Plaintifi demanded
11
that Defendant provide responses and reply without objections. Defendant made every effort t0
12
cooperate with Plaintifl‘, and complied with this demand.
13
14
15 II. A monetary sanction may order payment by the one who abuses the discovery process
of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
16 conduct.” CCP§ 2023.030(a).
17
Reasonable expenses may include filing fees, referee fees, and other costs incurred.
l8
19
Cornerstone Realty Advisers, LLC v Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 CASth 77 1, 790, 260
20 CR3d 653. The Court is not required to award sanctions in the full amount requested. 56 CA5th at 791.
21 The principle of reasonableness means that the court has the discretion to reduce this amount in order
22
to reach a reasonable award. 56 CASth at 791 , 793—794 (record showed that judge applied principle of
23
reasonableness to conclude that large portion of fees sought was unreasonable. The Court is not
24
legally compelled to award the full amount of sanctions requested merely because the party to be
25
sanctioned fails to challenge this amount. The amount awarded must still be reasonable. 56 CASth
26
27
at 794. A monetary sanction under the Discovery Act should be strictly compensatory. It may not
-2-
28
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION T0 COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION 0F SHINGO A.
AMANO
Document Filed Date
April 15, 2024
Case Filing Date
September 21, 2022
Category
Auto PI/PD/WD $10,000.01 - $25,000 Limited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
v BY FAX V F I L E D SBN 306854 Shingo Andrew Amano, Esq., StéPoEngvR 839$; ggogfikgoolsgm MARTINEZ, DIETERICH & ZARCONE LEGAL GROUP SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Physical Address: 333 S. Anita Drive, Ste. 625 Orange, CA 92868 Mailing Address: 11900 North 26th St., Ste. 200 Edinburg, TX 78539 File No.272186456 I 3y APR Electronic Service: legal—maiI((Dfredloya.com; shingo.amano@fredloya.®mna_ T: (714) 450-1731 F: (714) 634-3705 ,x% SUPERIOR COURT RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT m 1 5 mu ': IERLem, DEPUTY Attorney for Defendant, 8303 Haven Avenue HELIDA VELA Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO W 10 11 Case No. CIVSBZZZO649 RICARDO CALVILLO VEGA, an individual, Limited 12 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to: l3 Honorable 14 v. DepartmenW 15 HELIDA VELA, anindividual, and DOES 1 t1 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION To 16 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' Defendant. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR 17 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; 18 DECLARATION 0F SHINGO A. AMANO 19 Complaint Filed: 09/21/2022 20 21 22 TO THE COURT, ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, W Trial Date: 01/13/2025 AND TO 93/2? A ATTORNEYS f THEIR I RECORD: 23 Defendant, Helida Vela, opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the following grounds: 24 1. Defendant responded to the Discovery Requests for Production of Documents sent by 25 Plaintifi' and served the verified responses to Plaintifl’s counsel on April / 9, 2024. 26 27 __ 28 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES T0 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION 0F SHINGO A. AMANO x. BY FAX V ARGUMENT I. ALL DISCOVERY RESPONSES ILAVE BEEN SERVED, S0 THE MOTIONS T0 COMPEL PRODUCTION ARE ALL MOOT As attached as exhibit on this opposition, the verification form signed by the defendant regarding the discovery requests served by Plaintifi’s counsel have been served on April 9, 2024. Defendant’s discovery responses were sent to Plaintifl‘ on April 9, 2024. As Plaintifl‘ is now in possession of the requested amended discovery responses, without objections, complete with signed verifications, Plaintifl’s motion to compel discovery responses is moot. 10 Due to the delay in Defendant’s response to Plaintifi‘s discovery requests, Plaintifi demanded 11 that Defendant provide responses and reply without objections. Defendant made every effort t0 12 cooperate with Plaintifl‘, and complied with this demand. 13 14 15 II. A monetary sanction may order payment by the one who abuses the discovery process of “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that 16 conduct.” CCP§ 2023.030(a). 17 Reasonable expenses may include filing fees, referee fees, and other costs incurred. l8 19 Cornerstone Realty Advisers, LLC v Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 CASth 77 1, 790, 260 20 CR3d 653. The Court is not required to award sanctions in the full amount requested. 56 CA5th at 791. 21 The principle of reasonableness means that the court has the discretion to reduce this amount in order 22 to reach a reasonable award. 56 CASth at 791 , 793—794 (record showed that judge applied principle of 23 reasonableness to conclude that large portion of fees sought was unreasonable. The Court is not 24 legally compelled to award the full amount of sanctions requested merely because the party to be 25 sanctioned fails to challenge this amount. The amount awarded must still be reasonable. 56 CASth 26 27 at 794. A monetary sanction under the Discovery Act should be strictly compensatory. It may not -2- 28 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION T0 COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION 0F SHINGO A. AMANO