Preview
("’3‘-
NEWMAN & BROOMAND, LLP
I. Hooshie Broomand, SBN 210206
Paul M. Smith, SBN 306644: F ’L t: D
2360 East Bidwell, Suite IOQ
Folsom, CA 95630 g
2917 fiiiR- -9 PH 2 [41¢
Telephone: 916.932.0397 vLFPk‘r‘lf
1
THESU PL-
Facamile: 916.932.0398 1
cow; r UPXm'gf
0FPST C&URT
Attorneys for DUNCAN LYONS dba
AMERISPEC INSPECTION
\DOOflQUl-PUJNH
SERVICES
erroneously sued as DUNCAN LYONS and
AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR? THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
x
1
BILL BUNNELL and KIM :BUNNELL, CASE NO. 20 l 8041
Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
COMPEL BILL
j
vs. MOTION TO
i
BUNNELL AND KIM BUNNELL’S
RESPONSES TO FORM
1
GREAT VALLEY REALTORS,
INC. AUDREY GOESCH, TROY INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND
WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, GINA MONETARY SANCTIONS
WRIGHT, CENTURY 21 M&M
AND ASSOCIATES, TAMI Date; April 4, 2017
GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, Time. 8.30
DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC’ Dept- _
24
INSPECTION SER’VICES,
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHr—Ir—il—IH
and DOES
1 to 50, inclusive,
j
Defendants.
OOQQU‘I-hUJNr—‘OKOOONONUI-hUJNP—‘O
l
|
‘
Defendant DUNCAN LYONS dba AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES,
erroneously sued as DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES
w
(“Defendant”), hereby subrfiits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
.Support of its Motion to CQmpel Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell’s Responses to
Form Intérrogatories, Set Ofle.
///
‘
Memorandum of Points and Authorities 1n
Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel
I
CASE NO. PC 2018041
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arises out of the purchase and sale of a particular piece of real property
located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, California. During the home buying process,
\OOOflQLll-PUJNH
Defendant was retained t0 perform a home inspection of the subject property. Plaintiffs
and Defendant agreed that the inspection specifically excluded an inspection for mold.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs purchased and took possession of the subject property after the
close of escrow in or around February 2014. At or around this time, Plaintiffs claim to
have discovered the existence of mold and other related fungi. Plaintiffs filed the present
action approximately two years later on April 4, 2016.
Defendant brings the current motion seeking an Order requiring Plaintiffs Bill
Bunnell and Kim Bunneli to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One,
propounded by Defendant on January 10, 2017. (Declaration of I. Hooshie Broomand
Kim
NNNNNNNNNr—ir—AHr—Ar—AHHr—lr—Ar—A
(“Broomand Decl.”), 2, Exh. “A”.) To date, Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Bunnell
11
have failed to provide any responses to this discovery. (Broomand Decl., 113.)
OOQONM-QUJNHOKOOOQQLII#UJNHO
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2016, Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell filed their initial
complaint against Great Valley Realtors, Inc., Audrey Goesch, Troy Wright, Jason
Wright, Gina Wright, Century 21 M&M and Associates, Tami Gosselin, Damon Salinas,
Duncan Lyons dba Amerispec Inspection Services (erroneously sued as Duncan Lyons
and Amerispec Inspection Services), and Does 1 through 50, inclusive. Plaintiffs assert
the following seven (7) causes of action: 1) Breach of Contract against Seller (Jason
_ 2_ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel
CASE NO. PC 2018041
Wright, Gina Wright, and Does 1 through 10); 2) Breach of Covenant 0f Good Faith and
Fair Dealing Contract agaifist Sellers (Jason Wright, Gina Wright, and Does 1 through
10); 3) Concealment (Great Valley Realtors, Inc., Audrey Goesch, Troy Wright, Jason
Wright, Gina Wright, and Does 1 through 20); 4) Breach of Duty to Disclose Civil Code
\OOOQONUI-PUJNH
§1102 et seq. (Jason Wright, Gina Wright, Does 1 through 10); 5) Breach of Duty to
Inspect and Disclose — Civil Code §2079 et seq. (Great Valley Realtors, Inc., Audrey
Goesch, Troy Wright, Centfiry 21 M&M and Associates, Tami Gosselin, Damon Salinas,
and Does 1 through 30); 6) EBreach of Fiduciary Duty (Century 21 M&M and Associates,
Tami Gosselin, Damon Salinas, and Does 1 through 30); and 7) Negligence (Duncan
Lyons dba Amerispec Inspection Services, and Does 31 through 40).
Defendant propound‘ed Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell
and Kim Bunnell on January 10, 2017. (Broomand Decl., 112, Exh. “A”.) Responses to
Defendant’s discovery requests were statutorily due on February 14, 2017. (Code CiV.
Proc. §§ 2030.260; 2031.260; 1013.) To date, Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell
have failed to provide any responses
NNNNNNNNNHHHHr—AHHHHH
to this discovery. (Broomand Dec1., 113.)
OONQM-PUJNHOKOOOQQM-KUJNHO
III. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS
T0 ANSWER DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE,
WITHOUT OBJECTION, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S HAVE FAILED TO
SERVE A TIMELY RESPONSE.
If a party to Whom interrogatories have been directed fails to serve a timely
response, all objections are waived and the party propounding the interrogatories may
move for an order compelling responses without objection. (Code CiV. Proc. § 2030.290).
The service and filing of interrogatories pursuant t0 Section 2030.010 et seq. of the Code
of Civil Procedure places the burden on the interrogated party to respond by answer, the
‘
_ 3- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel
CASE NO. PC 201 8041
production of writings, or objection. The obligation of response must be satisfied unless
excused by a protected order obtained on a factual showing of good cause why no
response should be given. (Coriell v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Ca1.App.3d 487, 492)
KOOOQONM-bWNr—l
If no response has been made t0 the interrogatories within the time permitted by
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030, subdivision (a), the rule requiring a good faith
attempt to meet and confef does not come into play, and compliance therewith is not a
prerequisite to a motion t0 compel answers. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111
Ca1.App.3d 902, 908) In addition, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345, any
motion involving the content of a discovery request or responses must generally be
accompanied by a separate statement. However, a separate statement is not required When
no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (California Rules of Court
3.1345(b))
As indicated above, and in the attached Declaration of I. Hooshie Broomafid,
Defendant Form
NNNNNNNNNr—Ap—AHr—r—Ar—Ah—Ar—Hy—a
sent Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff on January 10, 2017.
(Broomand Decl., {[2, Exh. “A”) Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One,
ooQONUI-war—looooumm-hmmr—‘O
were statutorily due on February 14, 2017. (Code CiV. Proc. §§ 2030.260; 1013)
However, Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell have failed to provide any responses to
this discovery. (Broomand Decl., 113)
It is therefore respectfully requested that this Court issue an Order requiring
Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogaton'es,
Set One, without obj ection.
///
_4 _ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendant’s Motion t0 Compel
CASE NO. PC 201 8041
IV. IF THE MOTION IS GRANTED, THE COURT SHOULD ALSO IMPOSE
MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR
COUNSEL BECAUSE THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THEY ACTED
WITH SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION OR THAT OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE THE IMPOSITION OF THE SANCTIONS
UNJUST.
\OOOflmUl-PUJNH
The Court must impose monetary sanctions under Section 2023.030(a) of the Code
of Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney, who misuses the discovery
process, or who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel a response to discovery
requests, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust.
(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2030.290(c), 2031.300(a)) The Court may award
sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel
discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion
was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the
motion was filed. (Cal.
NNNNNNNNNr—AHr—Ar—Ar—AHr—At—Ir—Ir—t
Rules of Ct., Rule 3. 1030(a))
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose
OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOflaUl-PUJNP—‘O
monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process, including: “[fjailing to respond or
to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” “[m]ak1'ng, without substantial
justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery,” and “[d]isobeying a court order to
provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d)(e)(g))
In short, and as indicated both above and in the attached Declaration of I. Hooshie
Broomand, there are numerous sections of the Code 0f Civil Procedure that demand
monetary sanctions be imposed against Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell and their
counsel. Plaintiffs’ failure :to provide discovery responses without justification has forced
_ 5_ Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities in
Support ofDefendant’s Motion to Compel
CASE NO. PC 201 8041
Defendant to incur the expense of this motion, and to burden the Court with this motion.
(Broomand Decl., 11 4) As a result, the Court should impose a minimum of $790.00 in
sanctions against Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell and their counsel in the amount
of filing
KOOOVQMAWNv—a
fees and attorney’s fees Defendant was forced to incur to file a motion to reéeive
the entitled discovery. (Id.)
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell have refused to provide Defendant with
responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, without any substantial justification. For the
foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfillly requests this Court grant the motion compelling
responses, and for monetary Sanctions.
3rd
Respectfully submitted this day of March, 2017.
NEWMAN & BROOMAND, LLP
Attorneys for DUNCAN LYONS
B y:
A
NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—‘r—Ab—Ar—AHHHp—AH
x
I. Hooélvfie Broomand
OOVO‘xKli-PUJNF—‘OKOWNONUI-bWNF—‘O
- 6- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel
CASE NO. PC 2018041
BUNNELL V. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC. ET AL
StanislausCounty Superior Court Case No.: 2018041
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Sacramento County, California; I am
over the age of eighteen years and not a party t0 the Within action; my business address is 2360
East Bidwell Street, Suite 100, Folsom, CA 95630
On this date, I served the following:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL BILL AND KIM BUNNELL’S RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
on the interested parties in said action,
e/ US MAIL: By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Folsom, California, addressed as
set forth below.
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL: I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax
numbers listed in the attached Service List. No error was reported by the fax machine
that Iused.
PERSONAL SERVICE: By delivering by hand and leaving a true copy With the
person(s) and/or secretary at the address(es) listed below.
OTHER SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) t0 be delivered to the address(es)
listed below by: [ ]
Express Mail; [ ] Federal Express; [ ]
United Parcel Service; 01'
[]Certified, Return Receipt Requested; [ ]
LexisNexis; [ ]
Electronically Mailed
Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. Cory B. Chartrand, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NHNA L. TRIEBSCH 85 FRAMPTON,
RAMIREZ APC
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite Gl 300 N. Palm Street
Modesto, CA 95350 . Turlock, CA 9538 1—0709
I declare under penalty of pteury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 6, 2017, at Folsom, California.
' '
'
{Q6 log}
Christina Nelson
Preview
("’3‘- NEWMAN & BROOMAND, LLP I. Hooshie Broomand, SBN 210206 Paul M. Smith, SBN 306644: F ’L t: D 2360 East Bidwell, Suite IOQ Folsom, CA 95630 g 2917 fiiiR- -9 PH 2 [41¢ Telephone: 916.932.0397 vLFPk‘r‘lf 1 THESU PL- Facamile: 916.932.0398 1 cow; r UPXm'gf 0FPST C&URT Attorneys for DUNCAN LYONS dba AMERISPEC INSPECTION \DOOflQUl-PUJNH SERVICES erroneously sued as DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR? THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS x 1 BILL BUNNELL and KIM :BUNNELL, CASE NO. 20 l 8041 Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COMPEL BILL j vs. MOTION TO i BUNNELL AND KIM BUNNELL’S RESPONSES TO FORM 1 GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC. AUDREY GOESCH, TROY INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, GINA MONETARY SANCTIONS WRIGHT, CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES, TAMI Date; April 4, 2017 GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, Time. 8.30 DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC’ Dept- _ 24 INSPECTION SER’VICES, NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHr—Ir—il—IH and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, j Defendants. OOQQU‘I-hUJNr—‘OKOOONONUI-hUJNP—‘O l | ‘ Defendant DUNCAN LYONS dba AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES, erroneously sued as DUNCAN LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES w (“Defendant”), hereby subrfiits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in .Support of its Motion to CQmpel Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell’s Responses to Form Intérrogatories, Set Ofle. /// ‘ Memorandum of Points and Authorities 1n Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel I CASE NO. PC 2018041 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This case arises out of the purchase and sale of a particular piece of real property located at 2440 Kaslin Drive in Modesto, California. During the home buying process, \OOOflQLll-PUJNH Defendant was retained t0 perform a home inspection of the subject property. Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed that the inspection specifically excluded an inspection for mold. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs purchased and took possession of the subject property after the close of escrow in or around February 2014. At or around this time, Plaintiffs claim to have discovered the existence of mold and other related fungi. Plaintiffs filed the present action approximately two years later on April 4, 2016. Defendant brings the current motion seeking an Order requiring Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunneli to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by Defendant on January 10, 2017. (Declaration of I. Hooshie Broomand Kim NNNNNNNNNr—ir—AHr—Ar—AHHr—lr—Ar—A (“Broomand Decl.”), 2, Exh. “A”.) To date, Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Bunnell 11 have failed to provide any responses to this discovery. (Broomand Decl., 113.) OOQONM-QUJNHOKOOOQQLII#UJNHO II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 4, 2016, Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell filed their initial complaint against Great Valley Realtors, Inc., Audrey Goesch, Troy Wright, Jason Wright, Gina Wright, Century 21 M&M and Associates, Tami Gosselin, Damon Salinas, Duncan Lyons dba Amerispec Inspection Services (erroneously sued as Duncan Lyons and Amerispec Inspection Services), and Does 1 through 50, inclusive. Plaintiffs assert the following seven (7) causes of action: 1) Breach of Contract against Seller (Jason _ 2_ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel CASE NO. PC 2018041 Wright, Gina Wright, and Does 1 through 10); 2) Breach of Covenant 0f Good Faith and Fair Dealing Contract agaifist Sellers (Jason Wright, Gina Wright, and Does 1 through 10); 3) Concealment (Great Valley Realtors, Inc., Audrey Goesch, Troy Wright, Jason Wright, Gina Wright, and Does 1 through 20); 4) Breach of Duty to Disclose Civil Code \OOOQONUI-PUJNH §1102 et seq. (Jason Wright, Gina Wright, Does 1 through 10); 5) Breach of Duty to Inspect and Disclose — Civil Code §2079 et seq. (Great Valley Realtors, Inc., Audrey Goesch, Troy Wright, Centfiry 21 M&M and Associates, Tami Gosselin, Damon Salinas, and Does 1 through 30); 6) EBreach of Fiduciary Duty (Century 21 M&M and Associates, Tami Gosselin, Damon Salinas, and Does 1 through 30); and 7) Negligence (Duncan Lyons dba Amerispec Inspection Services, and Does 31 through 40). Defendant propound‘ed Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell on January 10, 2017. (Broomand Decl., 112, Exh. “A”.) Responses to Defendant’s discovery requests were statutorily due on February 14, 2017. (Code CiV. Proc. §§ 2030.260; 2031.260; 1013.) To date, Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell have failed to provide any responses NNNNNNNNNHHHHr—AHHHHH to this discovery. (Broomand Dec1., 113.) OONQM-PUJNHOKOOOQQM-KUJNHO III. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS T0 ANSWER DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, WITHOUT OBJECTION, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S HAVE FAILED TO SERVE A TIMELY RESPONSE. If a party to Whom interrogatories have been directed fails to serve a timely response, all objections are waived and the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling responses without objection. (Code CiV. Proc. § 2030.290). The service and filing of interrogatories pursuant t0 Section 2030.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure places the burden on the interrogated party to respond by answer, the ‘ _ 3- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel CASE NO. PC 201 8041 production of writings, or objection. The obligation of response must be satisfied unless excused by a protected order obtained on a factual showing of good cause why no response should be given. (Coriell v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Ca1.App.3d 487, 492) KOOOQONM-bWNr—l If no response has been made t0 the interrogatories within the time permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030, subdivision (a), the rule requiring a good faith attempt to meet and confef does not come into play, and compliance therewith is not a prerequisite to a motion t0 compel answers. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Ca1.App.3d 902, 908) In addition, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345, any motion involving the content of a discovery request or responses must generally be accompanied by a separate statement. However, a separate statement is not required When no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (California Rules of Court 3.1345(b)) As indicated above, and in the attached Declaration of I. Hooshie Broomafid, Defendant Form NNNNNNNNNr—Ap—AHr—r—Ar—Ah—Ar—Hy—a sent Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff on January 10, 2017. (Broomand Decl., {[2, Exh. “A”) Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, ooQONUI-war—looooumm-hmmr—‘O were statutorily due on February 14, 2017. (Code CiV. Proc. §§ 2030.260; 1013) However, Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell have failed to provide any responses to this discovery. (Broomand Decl., 113) It is therefore respectfully requested that this Court issue an Order requiring Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogaton'es, Set One, without obj ection. /// _4 _ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion t0 Compel CASE NO. PC 201 8041 IV. IF THE MOTION IS GRANTED, THE COURT SHOULD ALSO IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR COUNSEL BECAUSE THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THEY ACTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION OR THAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE THE IMPOSITION OF THE SANCTIONS UNJUST. \OOOflmUl-PUJNH The Court must impose monetary sanctions under Section 2023.030(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney, who misuses the discovery process, or who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel a response to discovery requests, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2030.290(c), 2031.300(a)) The Court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. NNNNNNNNNr—AHr—Ar—Ar—AHr—At—Ir—Ir—t Rules of Ct., Rule 3. 1030(a)) Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOflaUl-PUJNP—‘O monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process, including: “[fjailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” “[m]ak1'ng, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery,” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d)(e)(g)) In short, and as indicated both above and in the attached Declaration of I. Hooshie Broomand, there are numerous sections of the Code 0f Civil Procedure that demand monetary sanctions be imposed against Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell and their counsel. Plaintiffs’ failure :to provide discovery responses without justification has forced _ 5_ Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities in Support ofDefendant’s Motion to Compel CASE NO. PC 201 8041 Defendant to incur the expense of this motion, and to burden the Court with this motion. (Broomand Decl., 11 4) As a result, the Court should impose a minimum of $790.00 in sanctions against Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell and their counsel in the amount of filing KOOOVQMAWNv—a fees and attorney’s fees Defendant was forced to incur to file a motion to reéeive the entitled discovery. (Id.) V. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs Bill Bunnell and Kim Bunnell have refused to provide Defendant with responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, without any substantial justification. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfillly requests this Court grant the motion compelling responses, and for monetary Sanctions. 3rd Respectfully submitted this day of March, 2017. NEWMAN & BROOMAND, LLP Attorneys for DUNCAN LYONS B y: A NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—‘r—Ab—Ar—AHHHp—AH x I. Hooélvfie Broomand OOVO‘xKli-PUJNF—‘OKOWNONUI-bWNF—‘O - 6- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel CASE NO. PC 2018041 BUNNELL V. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC. ET AL StanislausCounty Superior Court Case No.: 2018041 PROOF OF SERVICE I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Sacramento County, California; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party t0 the Within action; my business address is 2360 East Bidwell Street, Suite 100, Folsom, CA 95630 On this date, I served the following: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL BILL AND KIM BUNNELL’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND MONETARY SANCTIONS on the interested parties in said action, e/ US MAIL: By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Folsom, California, addressed as set forth below. FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL: I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in the attached Service List. No error was reported by the fax machine that Iused. PERSONAL SERVICE: By delivering by hand and leaving a true copy With the person(s) and/or secretary at the address(es) listed below. OTHER SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) t0 be delivered to the address(es) listed below by: [ ] Express Mail; [ ] Federal Express; [ ] United Parcel Service; 01' []Certified, Return Receipt Requested; [ ] LexisNexis; [ ] Electronically Mailed Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. Cory B. Chartrand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NHNA L. TRIEBSCH 85 FRAMPTON, RAMIREZ APC 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite Gl 300 N. Palm Street Modesto, CA 95350 . Turlock, CA 9538 1—0709 I declare under penalty of pteury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 6, 2017, at Folsom, California. ' ' ' {Q6 log} Christina Nelson