This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/20/2018 at 10:04:34 (UTC).

SAMUEL REECE VS WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/21/2017 SAMUEL REECE filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1169

  • Filing Date:

    02/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

REECE SAMUEL

Defendants and Respondents

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER &

DOES 1 TO 100

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

LONERGAN MARK D. ESQ.

BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS

SEVERSON & WERSON A PROF CORP

SEVERSON & WERSON SAN FRANCISCO

 

Court Documents

Unknown

2/21/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

2/21/2017: SUMMONS

Minute Order

2/22/2017: Minute Order

EX PARTE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

2/23/2017: EX PARTE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

NOTICE OF FILING OF DECLARATION OF NON-MONETARY STATUS

4/6/2017: NOTICE OF FILING OF DECLARATION OF NON-MONETARY STATUS

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.

5/15/2017: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

6/2/2017: OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER A. FRANK IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

6/2/2017: DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER A. FRANK IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

Minute Order

6/15/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR RENEWAL OF PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SAMUEL REECE

6/16/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR RENEWAL OF PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SAMUEL REECE

NOTICE OF GENERAL DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS, LLP TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND TO EACH PURPORTED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREIN; ETC

6/27/2017: NOTICE OF GENERAL DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS, LLP TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND TO EACH PURPORTED CAUSE OF ACTION THEREIN; ETC

NOTICE OF FILING OF DECLARATION OF NON-MONETARY STATUS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/22/2017: NOTICE OF FILING OF DECLARATION OF NON-MONETARY STATUS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER

9/7/2017: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT BARRETT, DAFFIN FRAPPIER, TREDER & WEISS'S NOTICE OF DECLARATION AND DECLARATION OF NON- MONETARY STATUS IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST KMENDED COMPLAINT

9/11/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT BARRETT, DAFFIN FRAPPIER, TREDER & WEISS'S NOTICE OF DECLARATION AND DECLARATION OF NON- MONETARY STATUS IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST KMENDED COMPLAINT

ORDER SUSTAINING WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

11/8/2017: ORDER SUSTAINING WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

11/17/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

11/17/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

RESPONDENT'S NOTICE ELECTING TO USE AN APPENDIX

12/5/2017: RESPONDENT'S NOTICE ELECTING TO USE AN APPENDIX

99 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/08/2018
  • NOTICE ENTRY JUDGMENT/ORDER FILING DISMISS & PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • NOTICE ENTRY JUDGMENT/ORDER FILING DISMISS & PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Samuel Reece (Plaintiff); Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Wells Fargo Bank National Association (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • at 4:00 PM in Department 40; Court Order - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL FOLLOWING ORDER SUSTAINING BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS, LLP'S DEMURRER TO PLAIN LEAVE TO AMEND

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • ORDER SUSTAINING BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS, LLP'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • Judgment; Filed by BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
211 More Docket Entries
  • 02/23/2017
  • Order; Filed by Samuel Reece (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2017
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Samuel Reece (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Ex-Parte Proceedings (Exparte proceeding; Denied) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Samuel Reece (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • EX PARTE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESRTAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2017
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1. EQUITABLE CANCELLATION OF DEED; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Samuel Reece (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC651169    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

SAMUEL REECE,

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.

Case No.: BC651169

Hearing Date: March 19, 2021

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for a deposition and produce documents by April 15, 2021, is granted.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced sum of $374.15 (the court reporter fee for the non-appearance and the filing fee). Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank National Association (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Samuel Reece (“Plaintiff”) to appear for deposition and produce documents at the soonest date available since trial in the instant action is scheduled for June 18, 2021. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 2-4; C.C.P. §2025.450.) Defendant requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the total amount of $2,558.15 due to Plaintiff’s failure to appear for deposition. (Notice of Motion, pg. 3; C.C.P. §2025.450(g)(1).) In opposition, Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $200.

Background

On October 16, 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Production of Documents on Pro Per Plaintiff (“Notice”), with a deposition date noticed for November 12, 2020. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶3, Exh. 1.) On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff served objections to the Notice, objecting on the grounds that COVID-19 shelter in place order prevented him from appearing at the deposition; however, plaintiff indicated he would attend a rescheduled deposition. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶4, Exh. 2.) On November 4, 2020, Defendant informed Plaintiff that given Plaintiff’s objection to an in-person deposition due to COVID-19, Defendant would take the deposition remotely. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶5, Exhs. 1, 5.) However, on November 6, 2020, Plaintiff objected to attending any deposition due to COVID-19 related orders, without indicating why he would be unable to attend a remote deposition. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶6, Exh. 6.) On November 10, 2020, Defendant informed Plaintiff a remote deposition would not be in violation of shelter in place orders and accordingly, the November 12, 2020 deposition would go forward. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶7, Exh. 5.) Plaintiff did not appear for his deposition on November 12, 2020 and a certificate of non-appearance was taken. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶8, Exh. 6.) On December 8, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion.

Motion to Compel Deposition

C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides that, “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action… without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination…, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. §2025.410(a), provides that, “[a]ny party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with [the notice requirements in C.C.P. §§2025.210 through 2025.290] waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.”

C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(1) provides that, “[t]he motion [to compel deposition] shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2) requires that the motion to compel deposition be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

Defendant is entitled to an order compelling the deposition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not object to errors or defects in the deposition notice, which appears proper, and Plaintiff failed to appear at the noticed deposition date; as such, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling the attendance of Plaintiff for deposition. (C.C.P. §2025.450(a).)

Defendant is also entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff produce documents requested in the Notice. Defendant submitted evidence suggesting good cause exists for the production of the documents since they are relevant to Defendant’s defenses and relate to contentions Plaintiff asserts in his SAC against Defendant, the damages Defendant allegedly caused Plaintiff, and any documents supporting Plaintiff’s allegations. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly ¶3, Exh. 1.) Notably, Plaintiff’s objections to the Notice did not include substantive objections to the request for production, and instead only addressed Plaintiff’s inability to attend an in-person deposition and refusal to produce documents requested in the notice. (Decl. of Walser-Jolly, Exhs. 2, 6.)

In opposition, Plaintiff submits no argument in response to Defendant’s motion to compel his deposition; rather, the opposition is entirely directed at Defendant’s motions to compel discovery responses. Plaintiff attributes his inability to respond to discovery to lasting effects of his COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 pneumonia, from which he asserts he still suffers, rendering him weak. However, Plaintiff does not address whether his COVID-19 illness affects his ability to attend a remote deposition. In addition, while Plaintiff asserts he is greatly restricted in his ability to gather the information necessary to respond to requests for discovery, Plaintiff fails to submit any competent evidence in support of this assertion. Notably, based on the record, Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital at least as of January 19, 2021, and Plaintiff submits no declaration from a physician or expert supporting his assertion that remaining effects of COVID-19 have rendered him incapable of gathering documents and responding to discovery.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff appear for deposition and produce documents identified in the Notice is granted.

Requests for Sanctions

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted. C.C.P. 2025.450(g)(1) provides that: “If a motion [to compel deposition] is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction… in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, 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.” Here, Plaintiff has provided no justification for his failure to appear at the deposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff is sanctioned $374.15 (the court reporter fee for the non-appearance and the filing fee).

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied in light of the Court’s ruling on the motion.

Dated: March _____, 2021

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC651169    Hearing Date: March 17, 2021    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

SAMUEL REECE,

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.

Case No.: BC651169

Hearing Date: March 17, 2021

Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission are granted. Supplemental code-compliant responses to the discovery are to be provided within 30 days.

Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff are denied.

Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Four discovery motions are presently before the Court. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank National Association (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Samuel Reece (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One) (“RFPs”), and Requests for Admission (Set One) (“RFAs”). (C.C.P. §§2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290.) Defendant requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the total amount of $13,496.60, reflecting $3,520.65 for the motions directed at the Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and RFPs and $2,934.65 for the motion directed at RFAs. In opposition, Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the total amount of $800, reflecting $200 for each motion. The Court notes Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s oppositions are untimely. Based on the March 17, 2021 hearing date, the deadline for Plaintiff to file and serve his oppositions was March 4, 2021; however, the oppositions were not filed until March 8, 2021. (C.C.P. §1005(b).) The Court in its discretion elects to consider the oppositions.

Background for All Motions

On April 16, 2020, Defendant served its first set of Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs (collectively, “Discovery Requests”) on Plaintiff, and as such the deadline for response was May 21, 2020. On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff provided responses consisting of solely objections. After Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter, Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses by July 31, 2020, and the parties thereafter agreed to extend the deadline to August 31, 2020; however, Plaintiff failed to serve supplemental responses, and on September 30, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motions.

On January 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a request for vacating or continuing scheduled matters based on his recent hospitalization due to contracting COVID-19 and a lung infection, for which Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to the hospital on December 11, 2020. The Court notes that on February 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which is scheduled for April 29, 2021.

Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motions on March 8, 2021, and on March 10, 2021, Defendant filed a joint reply to the four oppositions.

Motions to Compel Further

Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to the Discovery Requests.

Regarding the Interrogatories and RFPs, Plaintiff’s responses were limited to objections, which included burdensome and harassing, overbroad, remote in time, equal access, invasion of privacy, violates HIPPA, physician-patient privilege, violates privacy and confidentiality of tax returns. Regarding the RFA, Plaintiff’s responses were limited to improper objections including foundation, authentication, speculation, compound and hearsay. In opposition, Plaintiff does not submit justification for the objections he asserted in his initial responses to the Discovery Requests and submits no argument suggesting the Discovery Requests are improper such that he should not be compelled to provide a response. Rather, Plaintiff attributes his inability to respond to discovery to lasting effects of his COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 pneumonia, from which Plaintiff asserts he still suffers and has rendered him weak. However, based on his January 19, 2021 filing, Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital at least as of that date if not prior, and Plaintiff submits no declaration from a physician or expert supporting his assertion that remaining effects of COVID-19 have rendered him incapable of gathering documents and responding to discovery propounded on him almost a year ago. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to submit justification for his failure to respond to the Discovery Requests between the filing date of the instant motions in September 2020 and his hospitalization in December 2020. Plaintiff has not submitted evidence suggesting he is entitled to not participate in discovery.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs are granted. To the extent Plaintiff has made a claim of physician-patient privilege, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a privilege log. Otherwise, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses without objection.

Requests for Sanctions

While Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions as the prevailing party on the motions, the Court finds circumstances make the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff unjust. (C.C.P. §§2033.290(d), 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).) Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied in light of the Court’s ruling on the motions.

Dated: March _____, 2021

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant

Latest cases where BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS LLP is a litigant

Latest cases where Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LONERGAN MARK DOUGLAS