On 10/22/2020 MICHAEL GREENSTONE filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******3476
10/22/2020
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
GREENSTONE MICHAEL
UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY
MAHONEY PATRICK
2/24/2021: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt - Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt
2/25/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)
12/8/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Patrick Mahoney re: Respondents Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
11/10/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
11/10/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
10/22/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
10/22/2020: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
10/22/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
10/22/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
10/22/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)
DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 02/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/25/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted
DocketUpdated -- Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Filed By: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 02/25/2021
DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Respondent)
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 26 - Hon. Elaine Lueffective 01/04/2021; Reason: Transfer for Reassignment
DocketCase reassigned to Spring Street Courthouse in Department 26 - Hon. Serena R. Murillo; Reason: Other
DocketUpdated -- 02/25/2021 Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Location changed from Department 26 to Department 26
DocketUpdated -- 02/25/2021 Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Location changed from Department 26 to Department 26
DocketDeclaration of Patrick Mahoney re: Respondents Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner)
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Respondent)
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent); Service Date: 10/23/2020; Service Cost: 40.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent); UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Respondent)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent); UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Respondent)
DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 02/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse
Case Number: 20STCP03476 Hearing Date: February 25, 2021 Dept: 26
Case Number: 20STLC00405 Hearing Date: February 25, 2021 Dept: 26
Hair v. Able Auto Adjustors, Inc., et al. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES
TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP § 2031.300) TENTATIVE
RULING: Plaintiff Cassandra Hair’s Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents,
Set One, and Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE FURTHER RESPONSES
AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD
ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $3,102.50 TO PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. On January
15, 2020, Plaintiff Cassandra Hair (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against
Defendant Able Auto Adjustors, Inc. (“Defendant”)
for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation
of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and negligence. On September
2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Further
Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and
Request for Sanctions. Defendant filed an opposition on February 10, 2021 and
Plaintiff replied on February 18, 2021. Discussion Notice of the
motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the
verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later
date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in
writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further
response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, the parties mutually
agreed to extend the time to respond to September 4, 2020. (Motion, Dahl Decl.,
Exh. 21.) Also, the motion must
be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (b).) Plaintiff filed a declaration demonstrating that the parties
engaged in a significant meet and confer effort prior to the filing of this
Motion. (Motion, Rocco Decl., 5-18 and Exhs. 7-19.) No supplemental responses
were served prior to the filing of the Motion. (Id. at ¶19.) The meet
and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied. Finally, Cal. Rules
of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further
discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the
response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further
responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court
may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request
and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).) The
Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed
3/15/19.) The parties agree that the substance of the Motion is moot,
Defendant having served supplemental responses on February 4, 2021 and the only
issue that remains is sanctions. The Court finds that Defendant’s conduct
resulted in the need for Plaintiff to bring the instant Motion. Plaintiff
extended the deadline for code-compliant responses three times: to July 22,
2020, August 21, 2020 and August 28, 2020. (Motion, Dahl Decl., ¶¶6, 12, 16;
Rocco Decl., Exh. 17.) Defendant’s opposition fails to explain why the August
21, 2020 deadline passed without service of supplemental responses. Defendant
also failed to produce responses by the next deadline on August 28, 2020. The
opposition argument that Defendant had concerns about the production of a
single document was not raised until the August 28, 2020 deadline to respond.
(Opp., Welde Decl., ¶3i.) This is simply too dilatory for the Court to find in
good faith and demonstrates that Defendant was not committed to meeting the
August 28, 2020 deadline, even after multiple prior extensions. Plaintiff’s attorneys spent a combined 9.7 hours with
respect to this Motion, . Attorney Dahl spent 7.7 hours billed at $325.00 per
hour and Attorney Rocco spent 2.0 hours billed at $300.00 per hour. (Motion,
Dahl Decl., ¶21; Rocco Decl., ¶21.) Plaintiff additionally incurred Motion
costs of $100.00. (Motion, Dahl Decl., ¶21.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for
monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $3,102.50 in attorney fees and
$100.00 in costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.310.) Conclusion Plaintiff Cassandra Hair’s Motion for Order Compelling
Defendant’s Further Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of
Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE FURTHER
RESPONSES AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF
RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $3,102.50 TO
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. Moving party to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases