Motion-Secondary: HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES INC VS. VICTORIA L CARD ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                STEVEN A. BOOSKA SBN 107899 ELECTRONICALLY

ATTORNEY AT LAW FILED

PO BOX 2169

OAKLAND, CA 94621 County of San Pranctoce

Telephone: (415) 397-4345

Facsimile: (415) 982-3440 08/21 2015

Attorney for Plaintiff BY:NOELIA RIVERA
Deputy Clerk

File No: 20140473

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LIMITED CIVIL DIVISION

HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.: CGC~15-544243

HERITAGE ME GROUP LL
7 Ce MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR CRDER COMPELLING
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES AND
FOR SANCTIONS THEREON

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
vs. )
VICTORIA L. CARD; VICTORIA h. ;
CARD INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA ;
PACIFIC HEIGHTS PLACE, et al., }

)

)

Date: October 7, 2015
Time: 9:30am
Dept: 302

Defendant Reservation No:08201007-06

I
TF A PARTY TO WHOM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ARE
DIRECTED FAILES TO SERVE A TIMELY RESPONSE...
THE PROPOUNDING PARTY MAY MOVE FOR AN
ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSE TO THE INTERROGATORIES
{C.C.P. SEC. 2030(k)]

In the instant case, plaintiff forwarded to defendant its
first set of Interrogatories on April 20, 2015. On or about
August 4, 2015 with no responses in plaintiff's receipt,
plaintiff’s counsel directed a letter to defendant demanding the
responses to the discovery within ten days. As of the present

date, defendant has failed to provide plaintiff with the27

28

responses to the Interrogatories and has failed to contact

plaintiff's counsel to discuss this matter.

It

THE COURT SHALL IMPOSE A MONETARY SANCTION UNDER CCP
SEC. 2023 AGAINST ANY PARTY, PERSON, OR ATTORNEY WHO
UNSUCCESSFULLYMAKES OR OPPOSES A MOTION TO COMPEL A
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
[CCP. SEC. 2030(k)]

Defendant’s abuse of the discovery process, despite
Plaintiff's good faith attempts to amicably resolve this
Matter, allows for the awarding of sanctions to plaintiff.
C.C.P. Sec. 2023(a) (4) states that “misuses of the discovery
process include..failing to respond or to submit to an authorized

method of discovery.” It further states that:
The court may impose a monetary sanction
ordering that one engaging in the misuse of
the discovery process, or any attorney
advising that conduct, or both pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s
fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.
C.C.P. Sec. 2023(b) (1).

In light of the above circumstances, the imposition of
sanctions on defendant is warranted.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 21, 2015 By Z 7

¢STEVEN A. BOOSKA
Attorney for Plaintiff