This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:23:49 (UTC).

MUHAMMAD L. KHAN VS PENNYMAC CORP., ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/30/2017 MUHAMMAD L KHAN filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against PENNYMAC CORP . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1971

  • Filing Date:

    03/30/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

KHAN MUHAMMAD L.

KHANUM FARIDA

DLI PROPERTIES LLC

Defendants and Cross Defendants

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A

AHMANSON OBLIGATION COMPANY

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK F.A.

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING

PENNYMACLOAN SERVICES LLC

PENNYMAC HOLDINGS LLC

DOES 1 TO 1000

PENNYMAC CORP.

MTC FINANCIAL INC. DOE 3

DLI PROPERTIES LLC DOE 1

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION DOE 2

KHANUM FARIDA

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

DLI PROPERTIES LLC DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

NUSSBAUM LANE MICHAEL

RONALD H. FRESHMAN ESQ.

DOBE LAW GROUP APC

FRESHMAN RONALD H.

COHEN HARRIS L.

BUBMAN MICHAEL E.

KOSLA MARTIN

MICHAEL E. BUBMAN ESQ.

DIMOND BRANDON

NEWMAN BRIAN H.

BURNS ELKANAH JOHNSOM

HYATT ROBERT AARON

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

8/2/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/30/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document

7/28/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

12/20/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

1/11/2018: Legacy Document

Request for Judicial Notice

1/16/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Legacy Document

3/16/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

5/31/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

5/31/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Ruling

7/2/2018: Notice of Ruling

Amended Complaint

7/3/2018: Amended Complaint

Amended Complaint

8/7/2018: Amended Complaint

Motion to Compel

8/13/2018: Motion to Compel

Notice

10/10/2018: Notice

Minute Order

10/16/2018: Minute Order

Order

10/16/2018: Order

Declaration

2/4/2019: Declaration

Reply

5/13/2019: Reply

248 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/12/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Ruling on Demurrers and Motion to Strike); Filed by DLI PROPERTIES, LLC (DOE 1) (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • Docketat 2:30 PM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • Docketat 2:26 PM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter), Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketNotice ( of Posting Adequate Protection Payments); Filed by MUHAMMAD L. KHAN (Plaintiff); Farida Khanum (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (of Muhammad Khan to JP morgans verified answer) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
344 More Docket Entries
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by Intervenor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; (OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Vacated) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Transferred to Other Department) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-04-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2017
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by MUHAMMAD L. KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by MUHAMMAD L. KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by MUHAMMAD L. KHAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC071971    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

MUHAMMAD L. KHAN, et al.

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

YC071971

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

PENNYMAC CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: August 18, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendant PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Farida Khanum and Muhammad Khan

As to Farida Khanum

1. Motion to Compel Further Responses of Farida Khanum to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

As to Muhammad Khan

2. Motion to Compel Further Responses of Muhammad Khan to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motions are GRANTED, in part.

Defendant PennyMac Loan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Farida Khanum Nos. 2.5 – 2.7, 6.2 – 6.6, 7.1, 8.7 – 8.8, 9.2, 10.1, 11.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 50.1, and 50.3, is GRANTED. The motion is DENIED as to Nos. 9.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 50.4. Plaintiff Farida Khanum is ordered to serve further responses within 15 days of this ruling.

Defendant PennyMac Loan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Muhammad Khan as to Nos. 2.2, 2.5 – 2.8, 2.11, 6.1 – 6.6, 7.1, 8.4, 9.2, 10.1, 11.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 50.1, and 50.3. The motion is DENIED as to Nos. 8.3, 8.5 – 8.8, 9.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 50.4. Plaintiff Muhammad Khan is ordered to serve further responses within 15 days of this ruling.

Plaintiffs Muhammad Khan, Farida Khanum, and their counsel are ordered to pay sanctions, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,120.00 to Defendant PennyMac Loan within 30 days of this ruling.

BACKGROUND

On March 30, 2017, Plaintiff Muhammad L. Khan filed a complaint against PennyMac Corp., et al.

On December 13, 2017, Plaintiffs Muhammad L. Khan, Farida Khanum as trustee of the Kahnum Family Trust, and Kappa Business Management, Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint.

On April 27, 2018, Plaintiffs Muhammad L. Khan, Farida Khanum as trustee of the Kahnum Family Trust, and Kappa Business Management, Inc. filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On July 3, 2018, Plaintiffs Muhammad L. Khan, Farida Khanum as trustee of the Kahnum Family Trust, and Kappa Business Management, Inc. filed a Third Amended Complaint against Pennymac Corp., PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (PennyMac Loan), PennyMac Holdings, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (WaMu), Ahmanson Obligation Company, DLI Properties, LLC, and Quality Loan Service Corp. for (1) cancellation of instruments, (2) wrongful foreclosure, (3) slander of title, (4) violation of Bus. and Prof. Code 17200, et seq., and (5) quiet title. Plaintiffs allege that Khanum Trust is the owner of the real property at 30429 Calle De Suenos, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 by grant deed from Plaintiff. The Note and Deed of Trust recorded against the property are invalid pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1550 and 1558 because Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. ceased to exist after April 4, 2005 and could not have created those contracts. The true source of the funds was concealed and not a party to the contracts, rendering them void. On December 30, 2008, Chase caused to be recorded a Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust with the Los Angeles County Recorder as instrument 20082267500. Since WaMu never held the loan contracts, Chase never acquired anything and could not assign them as a successor of WaMu. The assignment is void because it was executed by parties without the authority to do so and because the underlying contracts are void.

Plaintiffs further allege that on June 8, 2015, Chase recorded a second assignment, which is invalid as a self-to-self assignment. On the same day, Chase recorded a third assignment to PennyMac Holdings, which is not possible because Chase previously assigned its interest to Ahmanson in the first assignment, so it had nothing to assign to PennyMac Holdings. On December 24, 2015, Chase recorded a California Gap Assignment of Deed of Trust, which is impossible because it seeks to return interest only in the Deed of Trust to a party that did not exist at the time and did not assign back the Note. On July 25, 2016, PennyMac Loan Services as attorney-in-fact for PennyMac Holdings recorded a fourth assignment and a Substitution of Trustee, which is void because neither PennyMac Corp. nor PennyMac Loan Services was entitled to execute the document as PennyMac Corp. was not the proper beneficiary pursuant to Civil Code § 2934a. On October 25, 2016 and March 2, 2017, PennyMac Loan Services, through Trustee Corps, recorded Notices of Trustee’s Sale, both of which are void because they rely on invalid deeds of trust, misrepresent an amount due to PennyMac Corp., and were issued by a party that was not the duly appointed trustee.

On December 11, 2019, PennyMac Loan filed the two instant motions. The original hearing date was scheduled for May 6, 2020.

On April 10, 2020, due to the spread of COVID-19, the Court continued the hearings to July 23, 2020. Specifically, the Court ordered the “[b]riefing schedule is NOT extended by this order and is to remain as currently set.” See Minute Order April 10, 2020. On April 29, 2020, PennyMac Loan filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the two instant motions.

On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs Farida Khanum and Muhammad Khan filed their respective oppositions.

On July 16, 2020, PennyMac Loan filed replies to each respective opposition.

On July 23, 2020, the Court continued the two instant motions to August 18, 2020.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

45-Day Rule: Motions to compel further responses must be served within 45 days after service of the response in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax; see CCP § 1013); otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further responses. CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2016.050; see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 736, 745. The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410. The parties, however, can also agree in writing on a specific later date by which to file the motion to compel. CCP § 2030.300(c).

Meet-and-Confer Requirement: The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court (so-called “meet and confer”). CCP §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b).

Separate Statement: The motions must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. CRC, rule 3.1345(a). The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. Id., rule 3.1345(c). Trial courts is well within its discretion to deny motion to compel discovery based on the party’s failure to comply with the separate statement requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.3145(a). Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 871, 893 [holding failure to include separate statements required by California Rules of Court provided justification of trial court’s denial of discovery motion.].

Interrogatories

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. CCP § 2030.300(a).

DISCUSSION

PennyMac Loan filed an omnibus request for judicial notice of (1) this Court’s April 10, 2020 Minute Order, and (2) Notice of Non-Opposition filed by PennyMac on April 29, 2020 in support of its replies. The request is denied. The Court notes that generally new evidence is not permitted in reply papers. See e.g., Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537–1538.

PennyMac Loan also filed an omnibus declaration of Michael E. Bubman in support of its replies. The Court will not permit this additional evidence in the reply papers. See Mahaffey, supra.

In both Plaintiffs Farida Khanum (Khanum) and Muhammad Khan’s (Khan) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) oppositions, Plaintiffs recognize the Court’s April 10, 2020 Minute Order (Order) to not continue the instant motions’ briefing schedule. Plaintiffs, however, contend that they filed their oppositions on July 10, 2020 due to the “dizzying array of [COVID-19 related] orders,” which is “confusing.” Plaintiffs’ Oppositions, p. 2:16-17. In reply, PennyMac Loan argues that Plaintiffs were aware of the Court’s Order, yet did nothing. PennyMac Loan’s Replies, p.1:6-8. PennyMac Loan’s argument is well-taken. The Court expressly ordered the briefing schedule not extended and is to remain as currently set. See Minute Order April 10, 2020. The Court does not agree with Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Order is “confusing” as the Order explicitly ordered the briefing schedule not extended. Thus, Plaintiffs’ oppositions were due on April 23, 2020. Plaintiffs untimely filed their oppositions on July 10, 2020. Accordingly, the Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ opposition papers. CRC, rule 3.1300(d).

As to Plaintiff Farida Khanum

Form Interrogatories, Set One

PennyMac Loan requests that the court compel Khanum to response further to its Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2.5 – 2.7, 6.2 – 6.6, 7.1, 8.7 – 8.8, 9.1 – 9.2, 10.1 – 10.3, 11.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 50.1, and 50.3 – 50.4.

In the motion, PennyMac Loan explains that it served Khanum Form Interrogatories, Set One, on June 12, 2019. Bubman Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1. After several extensions, Khanum served responses on September 3, 2019. Id., at ¶ 3, Exh. 2. On October 17, 2019, counsel for PennyMac Loan sent a meet and confer letter to Khanum’s counsel detailing the inadequacies with Khanum’s responses. Id., at ¶ 4, Exh. 3. On November 1, 2019, counsels for both parties telephonically met and conferred with respect to the issues raised in the letter. Id., at ¶ 5. On November 19, 2019, Khanum’s counsel confirmed the parties’ reciprocal agreements to extend the deadline to file motions to compel further to December 6, 2019. Id., at ¶ 7, Exh. 5. On November 22, 2019, Khanum’s counsel sent PennyMac Loan’s counsel an email indicating that Khanum will not be providing further, amended, or supplemental responses. Id., at ¶ 5, Exh. 4.

PennyMac Loan argues that Khanum’s objection based on the collateral source rule is irrelevant and inapplicable as to the questions asked. PennyMac Loan further contends that the basic background information sought does not include sensitive information and is basic civil discovery, which is routinely produced in discovery.

Moreover, PennyMac Loan avers that Khanum appears to be asserting a loss of income; thus, questions regarding her employment information are directly relevant. PennyMac Loan also contends that Khanum’s responses are evasive and incomplete.

No. 2.5:

State: (a) Your present residence address; (b) Your residence addresses for the past five years; and (c) The dates you lived at each address.

Khanum responded with objections on grounds of relevant and the collateral source rule.

No. 2.6:

State: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and (b) the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the incident until today.

Khanum responded with objections on grounds of relevant and the collateral source rule.

No. 2.7:

State: (a) the name and address of each school or other academic or vocational institution you have attended, beginning with high school; (b) the dates you attended; (c) the highest grade level you have completed; and (d) the degrees received.

Khanum responded with objections on grounds of relevant and the collateral source rule.

No. 6.2:

Identify each injury you attribute to the incident and the area of your body affected.

Khanum responded, “[p]hysical, mental and emotional.”

No. 6.3:

Do you still have any complaints that you attribute to the incident? If so, for each complaint state: (a) a description; (b) whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse; and the frequency and duration.

Khanum responded, “[p]hysical, mental, and emotional stress after the incident is persistent.”

No. 6.4:

Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by

Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.31 0) or treatment from a health care provider for any injury you attribute to the incident? If so, for each health care provider state: (a) the name, address, and telephone number; (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment; and (c) the charges to date.

Along with objection based on privacy, Khanum provided the doctor’s name and address. Khanum further responded that medical records have been ordered and will complete response for those records not in violation of Khanum’s privacy within 60 days.

No. 6.5:

Have you taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that you attribute to the incident? If so, for each medication state; (a) the name; (b) the person who prescribed or furnished it; (c) the date it was prescribed or furnished; (d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and (e) the cost to date.

Along with objections based on privacy, Khanum responded, “[m]edication prescribed in August 2016, Celexa 10 mg.”

No. 6.6:

Are there any other medical services necessitated by the injuries that you attribute to the incident that were not previously listed (for example, ambulance, nursing, prosthetics)? If so, for each service state: (a) the nature; (b) the date; (c) the cost; and (d) the name, address, and telephone number of each provider.

Along with objections based on privacy, Khanum responded, “[t]aking medication due to depression and anxiety since August 2016.”

No. 7.1:

Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the incident? If so, for each item of property: (a) Describe the property; (b) Describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; (c) State the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and (d) If the property was sold, state the name, address, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.

Khanum responded “[y]es.” Khanum alleges loss of title to real property, estimated damages are $3,500,000, including equity, actual, consequential, and exemplary damages. The property was purportedly sold twice. Once on April 7, 2017, and again at second trustee sale in which the property was purportedly sold for $ 1,280,000.01.

No. 8.7:

State the total income you have lost to date as a result of the incident and how the amount was calculated.

Khanum responded that she will provide the final amount upon review no later than November 3, 2019.

PennyMac Loan asserts that the final amount was not provided by November 3, 2019.

No. 8.8:

Will you lose income in the future as a result of the incident? If so, state: (a) the facts upon which you base this contention; (b) an estimate of the amount; (c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is calculated.

Khanum responded only to section (a).

No. 9.1:

Are there any other damages that you attribute to the incident? If so, for each item of damage, state: (a) The nature; (b) The date it occurred; (c) The amount; and (d) The name, address, and telephone number of each person to whom an obligation was incurred.

Khanum responded adequately here.

No. 9.2:

Do any documents support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document.

Khanum responded that it will be identified by November 3, 2019.

PennyMac Loan explains that it did not receive any supplemental responses or further information by November 3, 2019.

No. 10.1:

At any time before the incident did you have complaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the incident? If so, for each state: (a) a description of the complaint or injury; (b) the dates it began and ended; (c) and the name, address, and telephone number of each health care provider whom you consulted or who examined or treated you.

Khanum responded with objections on grounds of relevant, the collateral source rule, and the question is not applicable.

No. 10.2:

List all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities you had immediately before the incident. (You may omit mental or emotional disability unless you attribute any mental or emotional injury to the incident.)

Khanum responded with objection on the ground that the question is not applicable. Khanum further responded “no physical, mental or emotional disabilities.”

No. 10.3:

At any time after the incident, did you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now claiming damages? If so, for each incident giving rise to an injury state: (a) the date and the place it occurred; (b) The name, address, and telephone number of any other person involved; The nature of any injuries you sustained; (c) The name, address, and telephone number of each health care provider who you consulted or who examined or treated you; and (d) The nature of the treatment and its duration.

Khanum responded with objection on the ground that the question is not applicable. Khanum further responded “no.”

No. 11.2:

PennyMac Loan seeks information on whether Khanum have made written claim or demand for workers’ compensation benefits in the last 10 years. If so, for each claim, state: (a) the date, time, and place of the incident giving rise to the claim; (b) the name, address, and telephone number of your employer at the time of the injury; (c) the name, address, and telephone number of the workers' compensation insurer and the claim number; (d) the period of time during which you received workers' compensation benefits; (e) a description o f the injury; (f) the name, address, and telephone number of any health care provider who provided services; and (g) the case number at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

Khanum responded with objection on the ground that the question is not applicable.

No. 14.1:

Do you or any person acting on your behalf contend that any person involved in the incident violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the incident? If so, identify the name, address, and telephone number of each person and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated.

Along with objection based on inapplicability, Khanum enumerated five statutes.

No. 14.2:

Was any person cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this incident? If so, for each person state: (a) The name, address, and telephone number of the person; (b) The statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; (c) Whether the person entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and, if so, the plea entered; and (d) The name and address of the court or administrative agency, names of the parties, and case number.

Khanum responded, “[y]es. Chase entered a consent agreement with the Department of Justice and 49 state attorney generals, and with the Office of the Comptroller agreeing to stop fabricating assignments.”

No. 50.1:

For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: (a) Identify each document that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; (b) State each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to that provision, and the date that part of the agreement was made; (c) Identify all documents that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; (d) Identify all documents that are part of any modification to the agreement, and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; (e) State each modification not in writing, the date and the name, address and telephone number of each person agreeing to the modification, and the date the modification was made; (f) Identify all document that evidence any modification of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document.

Khanum responded, “[t]here is a Note memorializing the debt and its repayment terms, and a deed of trust securing repayment of the debt. [Khanum] does not know where the original Note or deed of trust is held at this time.”

No. 50.3:

Was performance of any agreement alleged in the pleadings excused? If so, identify each

agreement excused and state why performance was excused.

Khanum responded, “[n]o such notice of transfer of ownership or rights to payment was provided. [Khanum] herein alleges that DEFENDANTS were first in breach of the contract by failing to provide notice of the purchase of the debt and identification of new creditor.”

No. 50.4:

Was any agreement alleged in the pleadings terminated by mutual agreement, release, accord and satisfaction, or novation? If so, identify each agreement terminated, the date of termination, and the basis of the termination.

Khanum responded that she lacks sufficient information and knowledge to answer the interrogatory at this time.

The Court finds good cause to compel further responses. The responses are incomplete and the objections are without merits.

Accordingly, PennyMac Loan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2.5 – 2.7, 6.2 – 6.6, 7.1, 8.7 – 8.8, 9.2, 10.1, 11.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 50.1, and 50.3, is GRANTED. The motion is DENIED as to Nos. 9.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 50.4.

Khanum is ordered to serve further responses within 15 days of this ruling.

As to Plaintiff Muhammad Khan

Form Interrogatories, Set One

PennyMac Loan requests that the court compel Khan to response further to its Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2.2, 2.5 – 2.8, 2.11, 6.1 – 6.6, 7.1, 8.3 – 8.8, 9.1 – 9.2, 10.1 – 10.3, 11.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 50.1, and 50.3 – 50.4.

PennyMac Loan’s contentions here are substantially identical as in its motion to compel Khanum to provide further responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One. The Court discussed at length PennyMac Loan’s arguments above and incorporates them herein.

No. 2.2:

State the date and place of your birth.

Khan responded with objections on grounds of relevant, collateral source rule, and privacy.

Nos. 2.5 – 2.7:

Nos. 2.5 to 2.7 seeks identical information from Khan as from Khanum above. The Court discussed the interrogatories above and incorporates them herein.

Khan objected on grounds of relevant and the collateral source rule.

No. 2.8:

Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state: (a) the city and state where you were convicted; (b) the date of the conviction; (c) the offense; and (d) the court and case number.

Khan objected on grounds of relevant and the collateral source rule.

PennyMac Loan contends that the interrogatory is relevant because the credibility of a witness can be attacked if he or she has been convicted of a felony.

No. 2.11:

At the time of the incident were you acting as an agent or employee for any person? If so, state: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of that person: and (b) a description of your duties.

Khan objected on grounds of relevant and the collateral source rule.

No. 6.1:

Do you attribute any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the incident? (If your answer is "no," do not answer interrogatories 6.2 through 6.7).

Khan responded, “OBJECTION. [Khan] can only testify to his own conditions, and as such, the response is no as to [Khan].”

Nos. 6.2 – 6.6:

Nos. 6.2 to 6.6 seeks identical information from Khan as from Khanum above. The Court discussed the interrogatories above and incorporates them herein.

Khan’s responses are identical to Khanum’s responses above. The Court incorporates the responses above herein.

PennyMac Loan contends that Khan’s responses to Nos. 6.2 – 6.6 are contradictory to No. 6.1. The Court agrees. Khan answered “no” to No. 6.1, as such, no responses is required to Nos. 6.2 – 6.6. Yet, Khan answered affirmatively to Nos. 6.2 – 6.6. Moreover, Khan’s responses are incomplete. Thus, Khan is ordered to provide supplemental responses to Nos. 6.1 – 6.6.

No. 7.1:

Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the incident? If so, for each item of property: (a) Describe the property; (b) Describe the nature and location of the dan1age to the property; (c) State the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and (d) If the property was sold, state the name, address, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.

Khan responded, “[y]es. [Khan] herein alleges loss of title to real property. Estimated damages are $3,500,000 which includes equity in property, actual, consequential, exemplary damages. The property was purportedly sold twice. Once on April 7, 2017 in which of Certificate of Sale was issued but no amount was stated; and again, at second trustee sale in which the property was purportedly sold for $1,280,000.01.”

No. 8.3:

State the last date before the incident that you worked for compensation.

Khan responded, “[Khan] does not have records and is currently doing a diligent search to determine this date.”

No. 8.4:

State your monthly income at the time of the incident and how the amount was calculated.

Khan responded, “[Khan] does not have records and is currently doing a diligent search to determine this date.”

The Court finds this answer is evasive because the interrogatory does not ask for a “date.”

No. 8.5:

State the date you returned to work at each place of employment following the incident.

Khan responded, “[Khan] does not have records and is currently doing a diligent search to determine this date.”

No. 8.6:

State the dates you did not work and for which you lost income as a result of the incident.

Khan responded, “[Khan] does not have records and is currently doing a diligent search to determine this date.”

Nos. 8.7 – 8.8:

Nos. 8.7 and 8.8 seeks identical information from Khan as from Khanum above. The Court discussed the interrogatories above and incorporates them herein.

Khan responded, “[Khan] does not have records and is currently doing a diligent search to determine [the amount and the loss of income.]

Nos. 9.1 – 9.2:

Nos. 9.1 to 9.2 seeks identical information from Khan as from Khanum above. The Court discussed the interrogatories above and incorporates them herein.

Khan’s responses are identical to Khanum’s responses above.

Nos. 10.1 – 10.3, 11.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 50.1, and 50.3 – 50.4:

Nos. 10.1 – 10.3, 11.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 50.1, and 50.3 – 50.4 seeks identical information from Khan as from Khanum above. The Court discussed the interrogatories above and incorporates them herein.

Khan’s responses are identical to Khanum’s responses above.

The Court finds good cause to compel further responses. The responses are incomplete, evasive, and the objections are without merits.

Accordingly, PennyMac Loan’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to its Form Interrogatories, Set One, as to Nos. 2.2, 2.5 – 2.8, 2.11, 6.1 – 6.6, 7.1, 8.4, 9.2, 10.1, 11.2, 14.1 – 14.2, 50.1, and 50.3. The motion is DENIED as to Nos. 8.3, 8.5 – 8.8, 9.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 50.4.

Khan is ordered to serve further responses within 15 days of this ruling.

Sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he 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. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 

Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel further responses against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  CCP § 2030.300(d).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states:  “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.”  

PennyMac Loan seeks $4,021.66 in sanctions per motion against Khan, Khanum, and their counsel. The Court finds sanctions are warranted. The Court finds that $2,120.00 is a reasonable amount to be imposed against Khan, Khanum, and their counsel, jointly and severally, in total for the two motions filed. The sanctions include the following: 5 hours for attorney’s fees at $400 per hour, plus 2 filing fees at $60 each.

Khan, Khanum, and their counsel are ordered to pay sanctions, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,120.00 to PennyMac Loan within 30 days of this ruling.

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

PennyMac Loan is ordered to provide notice of the ruling.