Você está na página 1de 6

1 Stanley C.

Harley
P.O. Box 1062
2
Thousand Oaks, CA. 91358-0062
3 (805)558-3590
Appearing In Propria Persona
4

6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


7 COUNTY OF VENTURA, LIMITED CIVIL
8

9 STANLEY C. HARLEY ) CASE: 56-2008-00328451-CL-MC-VTA


)
10
) NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR
11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO
) CASE QUESTIONNAIRE REQUEST
12 v. ) AND MONETARY SANCTIONS;
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
13
) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
14 CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC )
)
15 Defendant. ) Date: January , 2009
) Time: 08:30am
16
) Room: 42
17 _____________________________ )

18
TO DEFENDANT CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC AND ATTORNEY OF
19
RECORD:
20

21
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January , 2009 at 08:30am in the
22
above-entitled court in room #42, 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura,
23
California, County of Ventura, plaintiff will move the court for
24
an order compelling response to a Case Questionnaire request.
25
This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)
26
Section 93. In addition, plaintiff will also seek monetary
27
sanctions against defendant for reasonable expenses associated
28
with the time and costs incurred in bringing this motion.
NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO CASE QUESTIONNAIRE REQUEST Page 1
1 Good cause exists to grant plaintiff’s motion to compel because
2 defendant has failed and refused to serve a response to a Case
3 Questionnaire request as required under CCP §93.
4

5 This motion is based on the Notice of Motion, the attached


6 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, declaration of plaintiff,
7 the record and files of this case, and on evidence and argument
8 to be presented at the hearing.
9

10

11 December 08, 2008 __________________________


12 Stanley C. Harley
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO CASE QUESTIONNAIRE REQUEST Page 2
1 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Defendant has failed and refused to serve a response to a Case
4 Questionnaire request as required under California Code of Civil
5 Procedure (CCP) Section 93. The following argument will show
6 that plaintiff is in violation of CCP §93 and that the Court
7 should, pursuant to the above section, issue an order compelling
8 defendant to respond to the Questionnaire and order defendant to
9 pay monetary sanctions to plaintiff.
10

11 ARGUMENT
12 On October 02, 2008 defendant Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC was
13 served with plaintiff’s filled-out Case Questionnaire and a blank
14 Case Questionnaire. A true copy of the proof of service is
15 attached to plaintiff’s declaration as Exhibit “1” and
16 incorporated by reference.
17

18 CCP §93:
19 (a) The plaintiff has the option to serve case questionnaires
20 with the complaint, using forms approved by the Judicial Council.
21 The questionnaires served shall include a completed copy of the
22 plaintiff's completed case questionnaire, and a blank copy of the
23 defendant's case questionnaire.
24 (b) Any defendant upon whom a case questionnaire is served
25 shall serve a completed defendant's case questionnaire upon the
26 requesting plaintiff with the answer.
27

28

NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO CASE QUESTIONNAIRE REQUEST Page 3
1 As of the date of this filing, plaintiff has not received
2 defendant’s completed Case Questionnaire. Defendant’s proof of
3 service does not indicate that the Case Questionnaire was served
4 with its answer as required by statute. A true copy of
5 defendant’s proof of service is attached to plaintiff’s
6 declaration as Exhibit “2” and incorporated by reference. Based
7 upon information and belief, defendant has not served its
8 completed Case Questionnaire.
9

10 On November 17, 2008, plaintiff notified defendant of its failure


11 to provide a timely response to the Case Questionnaire (true copy
12 of letter attached to the declaration as Exhibit “3” and
13 incorporated by reference). Plaintiff conferred via telephone
14 with defendant’s attorney, June D. Coleman of Ellis, Coleman,
15 Poirier, LaVoie & Steinheimer, LLP, on November 26 and 28, 2008.
16 Ms. Coleman provided no evidence that defendant’s failure to
17 serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence,
18 or excusable neglect. Ms. Coleman did indicate that she
19 anticipated the completed Case Questionnaire would be reviewed
20 and verified by her client on Monday, December 01, 2008 and sent
21 to plaintiff. However, as of the date of this filing, no Case
22 Questionnaire been received. Indeed, defendant - either directly
23 or through its attorney - has not shown in any way that it would
24 have responded but for intervening forces that were not its
25 fault.
26

27

28

NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO CASE QUESTIONNAIRE REQUEST Page 4
1 Conclusion
2 Upon a failure to make a timely response to a Case Questionnaire
3 request, the party serving the Questionnaire may move the court
4 for an order compelling a response.
5

6 CCP §93(e): If a party on whom a case questionnaire has been


7 served under subdivision (a) or (b) fails to serve a timely or a
8 complete response to that questionnaire, the party serving the
9 questionnaire may move for an order compelling a response or a
10 further response and for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
11 (commencing with Section 2023.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.
12

13 CCP §2023.030: To the extent authorized by the chapter governing


14 any particular discovery method or any other provision of this
15 title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or
16 attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the
17 following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a
18 misuse of the discovery process:
19 (a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one
20 engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney
21 advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses,
22 including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
23 conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one
24 unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse
25 of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that
26 assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by
27 any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction
28 unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with

NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO CASE QUESTIONNAIRE REQUEST Page 5
1 substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
2 imposition of the sanction unjust.
3

4 Plaintiff requests sanctions for reasonable expenses associated


5 with the time and costs incurred in bringing this motion in so
6 far as they are deemed fair, just, and in accordance with
7 applicable standards and as a matter of law. Plaintiff has
8 incurred five hours researching and preparing this motion to
9 compel. If plaintiff were an attorney, plaintiff would request
10 $250 per hour for that time, but because plaintiff is a pro per,
11 plaintiff requests an award of sanctions at $100 per hour (5 hrs
12 X $100/hr = $500). To file this motion, plaintiff must drive 23
13 miles to and from his home to the court house in Ventura, CA (46
14 miles X 50.5 cents per mile = $23.23). In addition, plaintiff
15 will incur a court-imposed filing fee of $40 to file this motion
16 for a total monetary sanction request of $563.23.
17

18 CCP §2016.040 meet and confer declaration: Plaintiff has sought


19 to engage defendant in an informal resolution of the issues
20 before filing this motion. Reasonable and good-faith
21 communications have been in writing (Exhibit “3”) and via
22 telephone conversations on November 26 and 28, 2008.
23

24

25

26 December 08, 2008 __________________________


27 Stanley C. Harley
28

NOTICE OF AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO CASE QUESTIONNAIRE REQUEST Page 6