Motion To Compel Production

Motion

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 27, 2017

OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Gwen H. Ribar, Esq. (SBN 188024) Taline M. Keshishian, Esq. (SBN 233828) 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 477-5050 Fax: (949) 608-9142 Attorneys for Defendants ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 08/31/2018 at 09:36:00 AM Clerk of the Superior Court By Jeanette Torres-Mendoza, Deputy Clerk Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U. S. Bank NA Successor Trustee to Bank of America, National Association in interest to La Salle Bank NA as Trustee on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-5 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SANJIV PAL F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT, Plaintiff, VS. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; U.S. BANK NA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, NA, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK NA, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, WMALT SERIES 2006-5 and Does 1 to 10 Inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CIC [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable James J. Di Cesare, Dept. C16] DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF TALINE M. KESHISHIAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT THEREOF REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,782.50 Hearing Information: Date: October 5, 2018 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: C16 RES No.: 72881606 [Filed Concurrently with (Proposed) Order] Complaint Filed: October 27, 2017 Trial Date: April 15, 2019 1- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; DECLARATION OF TALINE M. KESHISHIAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT THEREOF OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 5, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in Department C16 of the above-entitled court located at 700 W Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, California 92701, Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) shall and hereby does move the court for an order compelling Plaintiff Janjiv Pai, F.K.A. Sanjeeve M. Paidhungat (“Plaintiff”) tg serve verified responses, without objections, to SPS’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents and to produce documents responsive thereto. This motion is made pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280, et seq., and based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide any responses to SPS’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents despite SPS’s multiple efforts to meet and confer concerning the same. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant SPS shall also move this Court for an order of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in the sum of $1,782.50 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Defendant SPS in bringing this Motion pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §2033.300(c). This Motion shall be based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration of Taline M. Keshishian, Esq., the complete court file on record herein, the papers served in Opposition to and in Reply to this Motion, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion. Respectfully Submitted, WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Dated: August 31, 2018 By: Isl Taline M. Keshishian Gwen H. Ribar, Esq. Taline M. Keshishian, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U. S. Bank NA Successor Trustee to Bank of America, National Association in interest to La Salle Bank NA as Trustee on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-5 De NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; DECLARATION OF TALINE M. KESHISHIAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT THEREOF OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This Motion seeks to compel Plaintiff Janjiv Pai, F.K.A. Sanjeeve M. Paidhungat (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified responses under oath and without objections to the first set of Request for Documents propounded by Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) on February 22, 2018. Per Code, verified responses under oath were due 35 days thereafter on March 29, 2018, including the additional time for mail service. An extension was sought one day after the responses were due, and the extension was provided to April 14, 2018. SPS’s meet and confer efforts were then ignored. As of the date this Motion was filed with the Court, SPS has not received any responses from Plaintiff or other correspondence or communication from his counsel indicating whether and when responses would be served. Accordingly, SPS is seeking and is entitled to an Order deeming the truth of all matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff and sanctions in the amount of $1,782.50, representing the fees and costs to SPS of prosecuting this Motion. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION On February 22, 2018, SPS propounded its first set of Requests for Production (“RFPs”) to Plaintiff. See Declaration of Taline M. Keshishian, Esq. (“Keshishian Decl.”), | 2, Exh. 1. Plaintiff’s responses to the RFPs were due on or before March 29, 2018. Id. at | 3. On March 30, 2018 - one day after the deadline for Plaintiff’s responses had passed - during a telephone conference, Plaintiff's counsel requested a two week extension to respond to the pending discovery. Id. at 4. Counsel for SPS granted that request during the March 30" telephone call. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s responses became due April 13, 2018. Id. However, Plaintiff failed to provide any responses despite the extension. Id. at 5. Accordingly, on May 16, 2018, counsel for SPS met and conferred with counsel for Plaintiff as to the outstanding discovery through email correspondence. Id. at q 6, Exh. 2. Counsel for SPS even A. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O provided courtesy copies of the outstanding discovery to Plaintiff’s counsel in an email correspondence on May 17, 2018. Id. at {7, Exh. 3. However, to date, Plaintiff has completely failed to respond to the pending discovery requests nor has counsel for Defendant been provided any reason for or further communication regarding the missing responses. Id. at | 8. III. ARGUMENT A. This Court Should Compel Plaintiff To Produce Responses Without Objections And To Produce Responsive Documents. Responses to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling are due within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the request, plus an additional five (5) days if service was made by mail within California. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§2033.250, 1013(a). If no response has been made to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300(b). In addition, a party who fails to respond to a demand waives any objections to the demand, including ones based on privilege or work product. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300(a). Because the motion is based on a failure to respond, the moving party is not required to provide a separate statement. Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b). Although the deadline to file a Motion to Compel is 45 days from the date responses were served, where no responses were received at all, however, there is no deadline to file a Motion to Compel. al. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 404. Here, SPS served its first set of Requests for Production of Documents by mail on February 22, 2018. Keshishian Decl., | 2, Exh. 1. Pursuant to Sections 2033.250 and 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff had until March 29, 2018 to serve responses, but failed to do so. Id. at {3. Asa courtesy, counsel for Defendant provided Plaintiff with a two-week extension, to April 14, 2018, to nn nn nn 4- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O respond to the discovery. Id. at 4. However, to date, Plaintiff has completely failed to respond to the pending discovery requests nor has counsel for Defendant been provided any reason for or further communication regarding the missing responses. Id. at J 8. As a result, Plaintiff has waived all objections to the demand. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300(a). As of the date of filing this Motion, Plaintiff has still not served responses to the outstanding discovery. See Keshishian Decl., | 8. Accordingly, this Motion is timely made as there is effectively no deadline to bring a Motion to Compel where no responses have been received. B. SPS Met And Conferred In Good Faith Even Though It Had No Obligation To Do So. Where the opposing party failed to provide any responses to discovery, there is no obligation to meet and confer prior to filing a Motion to Compel. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra, 148 Cal. App. 4th at p. 404. Nevertheless, SPS met and conferred in good faith by telephone on March 20, 2018 and email on May 16, 2018 and May 17, 2018, despite having no obligation to do so, in an effort to avoid burdening this Court with this Motion. See Keshishian Decl., |] 4-7, Exhs. 2-3. However, the meet and confer efforts were of no avail since no responses were ever provided and no response to the most recent meet and confer letter was ever received. See Keshishian Decl., 5, 8. C. The Discovery Propounded Is Relevant And Necessary For SPS To Defend Itself. A Motion to Compel under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310 shall further set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. See Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1). Here, the crux of Plaintiff’s Complaint involves wrongful foreclosure claims. The documents sought in SPS’s first sought of Requests for Production of Documents all related to Plaintiff's allegations, contentions and claims for damages. Specifically, the requests seek all documents in support of Plaintiff’s contentions that the subject property is Plaintiff’s primary residence (to determine whether the CA Homeowners’ Bill of Rights (“HOBR”) even apply in this case) and further in support of Plaintiff’s allegations that SPS committed violations of the HOBR. Additionally, the requests seek all 1 1 Be MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O discovery and documents in support of any claims for damages made by Plaintiff. Finally, the requests seek documents in support of Plaintiff’s claims regarding the loss mitigation correspondence / process. Accordingly, the discovery sought is both relevant and material to SPS’s defenses to the Complaint, and this Court should Order Plaintiff to produce responses and responsive documents, without objection. D. This Court Should Award Sanctions Against Defendant And In Favor Of SPS. Sanctions under Section 2023.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure are generally mandatory any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300(c). Sanctions are not mandatory if the court finds that: (1) The party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification; or (2) Other circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust. /d. Here, SPS met and conferred in good faith without any obligation to do so, all in an effort to avoid this Motion. Plaintiff not only failed to provide responses when they were originally due, but failed to provide responses after being given an extension and after a further meet and confer effort by counsel for SPS. Accordingly, there is no justification for Plaintiff to refuse to participate in the discovery process, and this Motion was necessary to obtain the discovery SPS is entitled to under the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, it is beyond meaningful dispute that sanctions are appropriate and warranted, and that there is no substantial justification or other circumstances warranting no sanctions. SPS has incurred a total of 2 hours in the drafting and preparation of this Motion and the attached Declaration, at a rate of $265.00 per hour. See Keshishian Decl., §9. Counsel for SPS further anticipates that it will take 1.5 hours to review any opposition filed herein and prepare a Reply Brief, and that it will take an additional 3 hours to travel to and appear at the hearing on this Motion, again at an hourly rate of $265.00 per hour, all for a total of 6.5 hours and $1,722.50 in attorneys’ fees. Id. In addition, SPS will incur a $60.00 filing fee as a result of this Motion, for a grand total of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by SPS of $1,782.50. Id. SPS respectfully requests that said amount be awarded to it as sanctions and against Plaintiff and his counsel, jointly and severally. 1 -6- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, SPS respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide both responses and documents responsive to its first set of Requests for Production of Documents, without objections, as well as an Order for sanctions against Plaintiff and in favor of SPS in the amount of $1,782.50. Respectfully Submitted, WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Dated: August 31, 2018 By: Isl Taline M. Keshishian Gwen H. Ribar, Esq. Taline M. Keshishian, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U. S. Bank NA Successor Trustee to Bank of America, National Association in interest to La Salle Bank NA as Trustee on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-5 7- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O DECLARATION OF TALINE M. KESHISHIAN, ESQ. I, Taline M. Keshishian, declare as follows: I. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all courts of the State of California. I am an associate with the law firm of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, the attorneys of record for Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) and U. S. Bank NA Successor Trustee to Bank of America, National Association in interest to La Salle Bank NA as Trustee on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-5 (“US Bank Trust”, collectively “Defendants”). I am one of the attorneys responsible for the day-to-day handling of this matter on behalf of Defendants, and in that capacity, and pursuant to my firm’s custom and practice, I receive copies of all pleadings, discovery, law and motion, email, correspondence, and any other written documents pertaining to this matter. As such, I have personal knowledge of the following matters and if called as a witness could and would testify competently thereto. I make this Declaration in support of SPS’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Janjiv Pai’s, F.K.A. Sanjeeve M. Paidhungat (“Plaintiff”) responses to its first set of Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions. 2, On February 22, 2018, my colleague Marvin B. Adviento, Esq. (who is no longer with my office) caused his assistant to serve SPS’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents (the “RFPs”) on Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of the RFPs, along with the proof of service reflecting they were mail served on February 22, 2018, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, responses to the RFPs were due to be served on or before March 29, 2018, which accounted for the 30 days Plaintiff had to prepare responses, plus the additional 5 days for mail service. I have reviewed both the electronic and physical file for this case, and I can confirm that my office never received any responses from Plaintiff by the March 29, 2018 deadline, nor has it received any responses to date. 4. On March 30, 2018 - one day after the deadline for Plaintiff’s responses had passed - my colleague Mr. Adviento had a telephone conversation with Plaintiff’s counsel wherein counsel requested a two week extension to respond to the pending discovery. Mr. Adviento informed Plaintiff’s counsel -8- DECLARATION OF TALINE M. KESHISHIAN OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O during that call that I would agree to two week extension - to April 13, 2018 - for the responses.’ 5. We then waited for the responses. However, April 13, 2018 came and passed, and Plaintiff and his counsel failed to provide any responses. 6. Accordingly, on May 16, 2018, Mr. Adviento emailed Plaintiff’s counsel asking him for the overdue responses. A true and correct copy of the May 16, 2018 email correspondence with Plaintiffs counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 7. In response to the May 16" email, Plaintiff's counsel stated that he did not recall receiving any discovery requests. In response, on May 17, 2018, Mr. Adviento reminded Plaintiff’s counsel of their March 30™ telephone conversation, and in the spirit of meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Adviento emailed Plaintiff’s counsel courtesy copies of the discovery that was originally mail served on February 22, 2018. A true and correct copy of the May 17, 2018 email correspondence (without attachments) is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 8. To date, neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have responded to my office’s meet and confer correspondence, nor have they (Plaintiff and his counsel) provided any responses to any of the discovery served on February 22, 2018. 9. My hourly rate for this matter is $265.00 per hour. I have billed a total of 2 hours drafting this Motion and my Declaration in support thereof. I anticipate that I will also spend an additional 1.5 hours reviewing any opposition filed in this matter and preparing a Reply brief, and that I will spend an additional 3 hours appearing at the hearing on this Motion and the attendant travel time, all of which will be billed to my client for a total of 6.5 hours and $1,722.50 of attorneys’ fees. Lastly, SPS will incur a $60.00 filing fee for this Motion. Thus, the grand total of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by SPS as a result of this Motion is $1,782.50. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 31, 2018. /s/Taline M. Keshishian Taline M. Keshishian, Esq. ! Exhibit 3 referenced in Paragraph 7 of this Declaration specifically references the March 30" call between Mr. Adviento and Plaintiff’s counsel and the two-week extension to April 13, 2018. 9. DECLARATION OF TALINE M. KESHISHIAN OO 00 JI A N Wn BA W N = ND N N N N N N N N E E e m E e E e e e c o NN O N Wn RA W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O PROOF OF SERVICE I, Cielo Tucay, declare as follows: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My business address is 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200, Newport Beach, California 92660. I am readily familiar with the practices of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Such correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. On August 31, 2018, I served the within DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF TALINE M. KESHISHIAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT THEREOF on all interested parties in this action as follows: [X] by placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Stephen F. Lopez, Esq. Stephen F. Lopez, Esq., APC 840 E. Parkridge Avenue, Suite 102 Corona, CA 92879 Telephone: (714) 760-9753 Fax: (714) 242-6944 Email: Steve @sflopesq.com Attorney for, Plaintiff, Sanjiv Pai, fka Sanjeev M. Paidhungat [XI (BY MAIL SERVICE) I placed such envelope(s) for collection to be mailed on this date following ordinary business practices. [] (BY ONE LEGAL FILE AND SERVE) I caused the document(s) to be e-served through One Legal File and Serve. [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 31, 2018, at Newport Beach, California. /s/ Cielo Tucay Cielo Tucay -10- PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT “1” 11 2 W R I G H T FI NL AY & ZA K * A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W OO 0 9 O&O Wn W N = N N ND N N N N N N ® JI & 6 XR B U R 8 5 x» 3 5 0 r o n 3 WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP Gwen H. Ribar, Esq. (SBN 188024) Marvin B. Adviento, Esq. (SBN 240315) 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 477-5050; Fax: (949) 608-9142 Attorneys for Defendants, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U. S. Bank NA Successor Trustee to Bank of America, National Association in interest to La Salle Bank NA as Trustee on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-5 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SANIJIV PAIL F.K.A. SANJEEV M. Case No.: 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC PAIDHUNGAT, : [Assigned to Hon. Judge James J. Di Cesare] Plaintiff, DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO VS. SERVICING, INC. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC; PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI, F.K.A. U.S. BANK NA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT TO BANK OF AMERICA, NA, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK NA, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, WMALT SERIES 2006-5 and Does 1 to 10 Inclusive, Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: _ DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI, F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT SET NO. ONE nn 1 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Ingy et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CIC WY W R I G H T FI NL AY & ZA K * A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W NO 0 3 O N Un Bh W N = N O N N O N N N N N N ® J & A Oh BA O N =~ S © ® JQ a A B B®» PO =~ o> DEFINITIONS As used throughout this request, the following terms shall mean: 1. "YOU" and/or “YOUR” means and refers to SANJIV PAIL F.D.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT the Plaintiff in case number 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange “SPS” means and refers to SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,(“SPS” a Defendant in case number 30-2017-00952283-CU- OR-CIJC, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. 2. “COMPLAINT” means and refers to the Complaint YOU filed on or about October 27, 2017 in case number 30-2017-009522283, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. 3. “SUBJECT PROPERTY” and/or “PROPERTY” means and refers to real property commonly known as 49 Cartier Aisle, Irvine, CA 92620. 4, “SUBJECT LOAN” means and refers to the $ 403,000.00 loan YOU obtained on or about March 15, 2006 from Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc., and secured by a deed of trust encumbering the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 5 “DOCUMENT” and/or “DOCUMENTS" refer to all written or graphic matter, data processing cards or tape, or any other writing or electronic means by which information is stored, however produced or reproduced, of every kind and description in the actual or constructive possession, custody, care or control of you, your agents, or representatives, including but not limited to, originals or copies where originals are unavailable, of correspondence, telegrams, notes or sound recordings of any kind, drawings, audio tapes, videotapes, photographs, films, or memorialization of in person or telephone conversations, or of meetings, conferences, memoranda, interoffice communications, reports, contracts, licenses, agreements, ledgers, books of account, vouchers, bank checks, invoices, charge slips, receipts, working papers, statistical records, stenographers' notebooks, desk calendars, appointment books, diaries, time sheets or logs, and transaction files, or papers similar to any of the foregoing however denominated by you, your agents or representatives. If a copy of a document as herein 2 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 4a, et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC th W R I G H T FI NL AY & ZA K * A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W Oo 0 9 O&O un BA W N N N N N D N D N O N O N N D = m m e a e a e a e m p a a p m © NN A N L r B W L D , O V O N N O RAR W N O R , OO defined, has any handwritten or extraneous materials placed on its face, the copy is a separate document and must be produced as such. 6. "WRITINGS" shall refer to the term as it is defined by California Evidence Code §250(e). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that 49 Cartier Aisle, Irvine, CA, is your “primary residence” in Paragraph 1 of YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: If YOU contend that 49 Cartier Aisle, Irvine, CA, is YOUR primary residence produce all DOCUMENTS upon which YOU base this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. §: If YOU contend that YOU were not contacted by SPS at least thirty (30) days prior to the recording of the Notice of Default (referenced in paragraph 10 of YOUR COMPLAINT) produce all DOCUMENTS upon which YOU base this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: If YOU contend that contend that DEFENDANTS committed an intentional material violation of Civil Code Section 2923.55, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: If YOU contend that DEFENDANTS committed a reckless material violation of Civil Code Section 2923.55, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: If YOU contend that DEFENDANTS committed a willful material violation of Civil Code Section 2923.55, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. i" i 3 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Ixy, et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CIC YW W R I G H T F I N L A Y & ZA K" A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W NO 0 NN A Y Ln A W N = ND N N N N N N N O N M m m em e m e m e m p m p m p m pe 0 N N L L R A L N = O O N N N R R L NN = o REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: If YOU contend that YOU have sustained monetary damages as a result of DEFENDANTS’ alleged violation of Civil Code Section 2923.55, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: If YOU contend that YOU have sustained non-monetary damages as a result of DEFENDANTS?’ alleged violation of Civil Code Section 2923.55, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: If YOU contend that contend that DEFENDANTS committed an intentional material violation of Civil Code Section 2924.17, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: If YOU contend that contend that DEFENDANTS committed a reckless material violation of Civil Code Section 2924.17, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: If YOU contend that contend that DEFENDANTS committed a willful material violation of Civil Code Section 2924.17, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: If YOU contend that YOU have sustained monetary damages as a result of DEFENDANTS’ alleged violation of Civil Code Section 2924.17, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: If YOU contend that YOU have sustained non-monetary damages as a result of DEFENDANTS?’ alleged violation of Civil Code Section 2924.17, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. 4 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Ig, et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC BH W R I G H T FI NL AY & ZA K A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W © 00 3 OO nn Hh W N N N N ND N N ®» I a 06 XR B O R E8 08 »®» I F R S 0 = 3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: If YOU contend that DEFENDANTS violated Civil Code Section 2923.6, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: If YOU contend that contend that DEFENDANTS committed an intentional material violation of Civil Code Section 2923.6, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: If YOU contend that contend that DEFENDANTS committed a reckless material violation of Civil Code Section 2923.6, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: If YOU contend that contend that DEFENDANTS committed a willful material violation of Civil Code Section 2923.6, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: If YOU contend that YOU are entitled to any monetary damages for DEFENDANTS alleged violation Civil Code Section 2923.6, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: If YOU contend that YOU are entitled to any non-monetary damages for DEFENDANTS alleged violation Civil Code Section 2923.6, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: If YOU contend that DEFENDANTS violated Civil Code Section 2923.5, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: If YOU contend that YOU are entitled to any non-monetary damages for 5 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Ing et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC WY W R I G H T F I N L A Y & ZA K“ A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W Oo 00 NN O N Wn BA W N N N N N N N N N O N H m m m a mb md md e k p e C0 NN O N Un A W N R O YW N N N L R R W N N = D DEFENDANTS alleged violation Civil Code Section 2923.5, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: If YOU contend that DEFENDANTS owed you any duty, in connection with the LOAN, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: If YOU contend that DEFENDANTS breached any duty, in connection with the LOAN, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs damages as alleged in Paragraph 28 of YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: If YOU contend that DEFENDANTS engaged in any unlawful business practices in connection with the LOAN, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: If YOU contend that DEFENDANTS engaged in any fraudulent business practices in connection with the LOAN produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: If YOU contend that YOU are entitled to any non-monetary damages as a result of the DEFENDANTS alleged violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: If YOU contend that YOUR LOAN was not in default as of February 11, 2015, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: If YOU contend that YOUR LOAN was not in default as of July 18, 2017, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. 6 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Ine, et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC B W R I G H T FI NL AY & Z A K “ A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W Oo 0 NN O N wn hh W N = N o ND N o N o \ N o N O N N o - -_- - - -_ -_ - -_ - -_ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: If YOU contend that YOU made any payment on YOUR LOAN from July 18, 2017, to the date of these responses, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: If YOU contend that YOU made any payment on YOUR LOAN from July 18, 2017, to the date of these responses, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: If YOU contend that YOU submitted complete loan modification application to DEFENDANTS at any time from June 27, 2017, to the date of YOUR response to these interrogatories, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: If YOU contend that YOU submitted complete loan modification application to DEFENDANTS at any time from June 27, 2017 to the date of YOUR response to these interrogatories, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: If YOU contend that YOU have had a material change in circumstances since March 18, 2015, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: If YOU contend that YOU have had a material change in circumstances since July 9, 2017, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Produce all DOCUMENTS that evidence the address of any property that YOU have occupied as your PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE from March 18, 2015 through the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: Produce all DOCUMENTS that evidence the dates that YOU have occupied the PROPERTY as your PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE from March 18, 2015 through the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: If YOU contend that the PROPERTY was OWNER-OCCUPIED from June 27, 2017, 7 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Ing et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC WV W R I G H T FI NL AY & ZA K * A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W Oo ® 9 O N nn r N N N N N N N N N N N N = m mE through the present, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: Produce all DOCUMENTS which REFLECT, RELATE TO, EVIDENCE that the PROPERTY was OWNER-OCCUPIED by YOU at any time between June 27, 2017, to the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: If YOU contend that the PROPERTY was YOUR PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE from June 27, 2017, through the present, produce all DOCUMENTS that SUPPORT this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Produce all DOCUMENTS which REFLECT, RELATE TO, EVIDENCE that the PROPERTY was YOUR PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE at any time between June 27, 2017, to the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.72: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that YOU qualified for a loan modification in 2017, as alleged in Paragraph 21 of YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that “Defendants have acted maliciously” in connection with the LOAN, as alleged in Paragraph 29 of YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that “Defendants have acted ...fraudulently” in connection with the LOAN, as alleged in Paragraph 29 of YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that “Defendants have acted ...in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights” in connection with the LOAN, as alleged in Paragraph 29 of YOUR COMPLAINT. 8 DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Ing et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC i W R I G H T FI NL AY & ZA K A T T O R N E Y S AT LA W O O 0 9 O&O Wn sh WLW N = [\ ®) \S ) \® ] \® ] N o N o No \® ) No -_ - - -_ - - p t - - - oo ~ J AN Wn Ww No - o © oo ~J AN Wn B A W No p- o REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that Defendants denied YOU the benefits of the LOAN, as alleged in Paragraph 31of YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that “Defendants have acted maliciously” in connection with the LOAN, as alleged in Paragraph 34 of YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that “Defendants have acted ...fraudulently” in connection with the LOAN, as alleged in Paragraph 34 of YOUR COMPLAINT. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: Produce all DOCUMENTS which SUPPORT, EVIDENCE or relate to YOUR allegation that “Defendants have acted ...in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights” in connection with the LOAN, as alleged in Paragraph 34 of YOUR COMPLAINT. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, F & ZAK, LLP Dated: February 22, 2018 By: Gwen H. Ribar, Esq. Marvin B. Adviento, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U. S. Bank NA Successor Trustee to Bank of America, National Association in interest to La Salle Bank NA as Trustee on behalf of the holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-5 9 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT Pai, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Ing et al., Court Case No. 30-2017-00952283-CU-OR-CJC [Ne ] © 00 3 O N Wn Ax Ww 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROQOF OF SERVICE I, Steven E. Bennett, declare as follows: I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My business address is 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200, Newport Beach, California 92660. I am readily familiar with the practices of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Such correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. On February 22, 2018, I served the within DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, SANJIV PAI F.K.A. SANJEEV M. PAIDHUNGAT, SET ONE on all interested parties in this action as follows: [1 by placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Stephen F. Lopez, Esq. Stephen F. Lopez Esq. APC 1331 W. 1st Street, Suite 102 Santa Ana, CA 92703 Telephone: (714) 760-9753 Facsimile: (714) 242-6944 Email: Steve@sflopesq.com Attorney for, Plaintiff, Sanjiv Pai, fka Sanjeev M. Paidhungat [X] (BY MAIL SERVICE) I placed such envelope(s) for collection to be mailed on this date following ordinary business practices. [1 (BY CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE) I placed such envelope(s) for collection to be mailed on this date following ordinary business practices, via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. [1] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused personal delivery by ATTORNEY SERVICE of said document(s) to the offices of the addressee(s) as set forth on the attached service list. [1 (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used, with telephone no. (949) 477-9200, complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2003, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2006(d), I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to the original Proof of Service. [1] (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT- NEXT DAY DELIVERY) I placed true and correct copies thereof enclosed in a package designated by Federal Express Overnight with the delivery fees provided for. [1] (BY ONE LEGAL FILE AND SERVE) I caused the document(s) to be e-served through One Legal File and Serve. 21 1 PRONE OF SERVICE 0 NN O N n n bs W N \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [] [X] (CM/ECEF Electronic Filing) I caused the above document(s) to be transmitted to the office(s) of the addressee(s) listed by electronic mail at the e-mail address(es) set forth above pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.5(b)(2)(E). “A Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) is generated automatically by the ECF system upon completion of an electronic filing. The NEF, when e-mailed to the e-mail address of record in the case, shall constitute the proof of service as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.5(b)(2)(E). A copy of the NEF shall be attached to any document served in the traditional manner upon any party appearing pro se.” (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 22, 2018, at Newport Beach, California. SASL Steven E. Bennett 22 2 PROOF OR SERVICE EXHIBIT 2” 23 From: Marvin B. Adviento Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:43 AM To: Stephen Lopez Subject: RE: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. Importance: High Stephen, | don’t recall receiving discovery responses from you. If you have them please send to me. Also, we discussed how the property is not owner-occupied, but a rental...which renders HOBR inapplicable. | think that throws out the entire case. Would your client be willing to take some cash to dismiss? Thanks, Marvin Marvin B. Adviento, Esq. WRIGHTFINLAY& ZAK “ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Direct (949) 610-7021 Fax (949) 608-9142 Main (949) 477-5050 ext. 1021 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico Certified Wimen's Busenew Enterprise For escalated communications on matters, please contact the associate’s supervising attorney, Gwen Ribar at gribar@wrightlegal.net and (949) 477-5055. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5050 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank you. From: Cori B. Jones Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 7:49 AM To: 'Stephen Lopez 24 Cc: Daniel Gyurec; Veronica Ramirez Subject: RE: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. Stephen, thanks for the response. The purpose of the meet and confer is not to get your client to dismiss the case. Rather, it is to avoid unnecessary demurrers by allowing a plaintiff to amend the complaint based on the perceived defects. The second purpose of the email was to explore early settlement in this case. You did not tell me whether you conveyed the offer to your client and if he rejected said offer. Please advise. Cori B. Jones, Esq. WRIGHTFINLAY& ZAK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 610-7013 Direct (949) 608-9142 Fax (949) 477-5050 Main Ext. 1015 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and New Mexico Certified \ 5 Women's Business Encorpras PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5052 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank You. From: Stephen Lopez [mailto:steve@sflopesqg.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 6:59 AM To: Cori B. Jones Cc: Daniel Gyurec; Veronica Ramirez Subject: RE: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. Cori. | am out of town this week. As | am sure you are aware | am not going to agree ti just dismiss so go ahead and file your demurrer From: Cori B. Jones [mailto:cjones@wrightlegal.net] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 5:41 PM To: Stephen Lopez Subject: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. Stephen- This is an second attempt to meet and confer prior to my filing a demurrer (and a motion to strike punitive damages, attorney fees, and statutory damages). 25 I have reviewed the complaint, servicing notes, call recordings, and letters sent to your client. With respect to the below claims, either they lack merit because they are factually inaccurate as alleged, or they fail for substantive reasons. 1. HBOR claims- a. First, this cause of action is procedurally improper as it lumps multiple causes of action into one and does not clarify who the target defendants are (CRC 2.112). A demurrer is proper for uncertainty under CCP 430.40(f) if a complaint fails to label the defendants and the claims. b. Violations of 2923.55/2924.17- the allegations are that there was no actual contact and that no letter was sent providing for the borrower to request certain loan related documents. | have reviewed the contact history and there was actual contact made with the borrower on 1/7/16 as alleged in the declaration attached to the NOD. | will be ordering this call recording to verify. Further, | have located the letter advising borrowers of their right to request those documents which was sent on November 17, 2016. There are also records of the borrower requesting and receiving the information/documentation. The 2924.17 claim is based solely on the allegation that no contact was made with borrower as alleged in the declaration attached to the NOD, which is simply a false allegation. c. Violations of 2923.6- The client contact notes are clear that the application submitted was not complete before the NOD was recorded on 7/18/17. The June 27, 2017 letter referred to in the complaint simply stated that documents had been received. Indeed the allegations of the complaint support that no complete application was submitted until about September 27, 2017. Additionally there are no allegations that borrower was entitled to protection under 2923.6 as they have a long history of loan modification activity (2015 completed HAMP Mod; 2016 Failed out of a repayment plan), but no allegations of a material chance in circumstance that would require the servicer to re-review this borrower. 2. Negligence- As you know, generally a servicer or lender owes no duty to a borrower and the only breach alleged is that the defendants is that they “failed to consider or respond to the applications and in dual tracking the application” which as explained above, is factually inaccurate. a. This cause of action suffers from the same infirmary as the above, and it is procedurally improper because does not clarify who the target defendants are (CRC 2.112). A demurrer is proper for uncertainty under CCP 430.40(f) if a complaint fails to label the defendants and the claims. 3. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing- a. This cause of action suffers from the same infirmary as the above, and it is procedurally improper because does not clarify who the target defendants are (CRC 2.112). A demurrer is proper for uncertainty under CCP 430.40(f) if a complaint fails to label the defendants and the claims. b. This cause of action claims that the Deed of Trust contains the implied covenant. Plaintiff did not, and cannot, allege that Defendants breached the actual terms of the Note and Deed of Trust. Plaintiff also did not, and cannot, allege that Defendants unfairly frustrated his receipt of the benefits of the actual contract since Plaintiff admittedly used the loan proceeds to purchase/refinance the Property. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to impose on Defendants substantive duties that are above and beyond those obligations incorporated in the specific contractual terms. In fact, the purported obligations contradict the express terms of the contract. Because this claim is not a bad faith insurance case, plaintiff is also limited to stating a claim within the context of a breach of contract, which he fails to do. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1054) 4. 17200- these claims rest on the above. As explained there was no unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent behavior, thus this claim fails. This cause of action suffers from the same infirmary as the above, and it is procedurally improper because does not clarify who the target defendants are (CRC 2.112). A demurrer is proper for uncertainty under CCP 430.40(f) if a complaint fails to label the defendants and the claims. 5. Misjoinder of Parties- this complaint is subject to dismissal because all parties to the note and deed of trust are not included. The borrower Manjusha Paidhungat is not a party to the complaint. 26 Notwithstanding the above, my client is interested in an early resolution of this case and makes the following offer to settle before any further litigation occurs: If your client agrees to dismiss this case with prejudice, my client will pay him $4,250.00 (total). Each party will bear their own fees and costs and Plaintiff will agree to release SPS and the US Bank Trust from any liability under the complaint. The settlement would need to include not only Sanjiv, but Manjusha as well. Please discuss early settlement as an option with your client and let me know if this is an option. This offer to settle expires at 5:00pm on November 30, 2017. Please make every effort to discuss the details with your client and myself before that date. Cori B. Jones, Esq. * WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK “ - ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 610-7013 Direct (949) 608-9142 Fax (949) 477-5050 Main Ext. 1015 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and New Mexico Certified Wimen's Buses Enters PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5052 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank You. From: Cori B. Jones Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:20 PM To: Stephen Lopez Subject: Paidhungat v. SPS Stephen, give me a call on this case when you get a chance, please. Cori B. Jones, Esq. 1) WRIGHTFINLAY& ZAK * MB ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 610-7013 Direct (949) 608-9142 Fax (949) 477-5050 Main Ext. 1015 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and New Mexico Certified Women's Buomen Enterprise PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5052 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank You. 28 EXHIBIT “3” 29 From: Marvin B. Adviento Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:18 PM To: Steve Office Cc: Veronica.Ramirez@elitelitigationsupport.com Subject: RE: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. Attachments: 3443100.pdf; 3443096.pdf; 3443087 pdf; 3443090.pdf Here you go. We even had a phone call on March 30" where you asked for a two week extension, which | agreed to. Responses were due April 13". I'm pretty sure objections are waived. Also, the Complaint has HOBR claims. As we also discussed, this is a rental -= HOBR would not apply. Can we agree to a dismissal before | have to serve a 128.7? Thanks, Marvin Marvin B. Adviento, Esq. > WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Direct (949) 610-7021 Fax (949) 608-9142 Main (949) 477-5050 ext. 1021 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico Certified Wimen's Busenews Enters For escalated communications on matters, please contact the associate’s supervising attorney, Gwen Ribar at gribar@wrightlegal.net and (949) 477-5055. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5050 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank you. From: Steve Office [mailto:steve@sflopesq.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 1:45 PM To: Marvin B. Adviento Cc: Veronica.Ramirez@elitelitigationsupport.com Subject: Re: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. 1 30 | do not recall receiving discovery. Vero? Sent from my iPhone On May 16, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Marvin B. Adviento wrote: Stephen, | don’t recall receiving discovery responses from you. If you have them please send to me. Also, we discussed how the property is not owner-occupied, but a rental...which renders HOBR inapplicable. | think that throws out the entire case. Would your client be willing to take some cash to dismiss? Thanks, Marvin Marvin B. Adviento, Esq. 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Direct (949) 610-7021 Fax (949) 608-9142 Main (949) 477-5050 ext. 1021 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico For escalated communications on matters, please contact the associate’s supervising attorney, Gwen Ribar at gribar@wrightlegal.net and (949) 477-5055. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5050 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank you. From: Cori B. Jones Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 7:49 AM To: 'Stephen Lopez’ Cc: Daniel Gyurec; Veronica Ramirez Subject: RE: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. Stephen, thanks for the response. The purpose of the meet and confer is not to get your client to dismiss the case. Rather, it is to avoid unnecessary demurrers by allowing a plaintiff to amend the complaint based on the perceived defects. The second purpose of the email was to explore early settlement in this case. You did not tell me whether you conveyed the offer to your client and if he rejected said offer. Please advise. 2 31 Cori B. Jones, Esq. 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 610-7013 Direct (949) 608-9142 Fax (949) 477-5050 Main Ext. 1015 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and New Mexico PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5052 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank You. From: Stephen Lopez [mailto:steve@sflopesq.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 6:59 AM To: Cori B. Jones Cc: Daniel Gyurec; Veronica Ramirez Subject: RE: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. Cori. | am out of town this week. As | am sure you are aware | am not going to agree ti just dismiss so go ahead and file your demurrer From: Cori B. Jones [mailto:cjones@wrightlegal.net] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 5:41 PM To: Stephen Lopez Subject: Paidhungat v. SPS- Meet and Confer and Settlement Correspondence Ev. Code 1152 et seq. Stephen- This is an second attempt to meet and confer prior to my filing a demurrer (and a motion to strike punitive damages, attorney fees, and statutory damages). | have reviewed the complaint, servicing notes, call recordings, and letters sent to your client. With respect to the below claims, either they lack merit because they are factually inaccurate as alleged, or they fail for substantive reasons. 1. HBOR claims- a. First, this cause of action is procedurally improper as it lumps multiple causes of action into one and does not clarify who the target defendants are (CRC 2.112). A demurrer is proper for uncertainty under CCP 430.40(f) if a complaint fails to label the defendants and the claims. 3 32 4. b. Violations of 2923.55/2924.17- the allegations are that there was no actual contact and that no letter was sent providing for the borrower to request certain loan related documents. | have reviewed the contact history and there was actual contact made with the borrower on 1/7/16 as alleged in the declaration attached to the NOD. | will be ordering this call recording to verify. Further, | have located the letter advising borrowers of their right to request those documents which was sent on November 17, 2016. There are also records of the borrower requesting and receiving the information/documentation. The 2924.17 claim is based solely on the allegation that no contact was made with borrower as alleged in the declaration attached to the NOD, which is simply a false allegation. c. Violations of 2923.6- The client contact notes are clear that the application submitted was not complete before the NOD was recorded on 7/18/17. The June 27, 2017 letter referred to in the complaint simply stated that documents had been received. Indeed the allegations of the complaint support that no complete application was submitted until about September 27, 2017. Additionally there are no allegations that borrower was entitled to protection under 2923.6 as they have a long history of loan modification activity (2015 completed HAMP Mod; 2016 Failed out of a repayment plan), but no allegations of a material chance in circumstance that would require the servicer to re- review this borrower. Negligence- As you know, generally a servicer or lender owes no duty to a borrower and the only breach alleged is that the defendants is that they “failed to consider or respond to the applications and in dual tracking the application” which as explained above, is factually inaccurate. a. This cause of action suffers from the same infirmary as the above, and it is procedurally improper because does not clarify who the target defendants are (CRC 2.112). A demurrer is proper for uncertainty under CCP 430.40(f) if a complaint fails to label the defendants and the claims. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing- a. This cause of action suffers from the same infirmary as the above, and it is procedurally improper because does not clarify who the target defendants are (CRC 2.112). A demurrer is proper for uncertainty under CCP 430.40(f) if a complaint fails to label the defendants and the claims. b. This cause of action claims that the Deed of Trust contains the implied covenant. Plaintiff did not, and cannot, allege that Defendants breached the actual terms of the Note and Deed of Trust. Plaintiff also did not, and cannot, allege that Defendants unfairly frustrated his receipt of the benefits of the actual contract since Plaintiff admittedly used the loan proceeds to purchase/refinance the Property. Instead, Plaintiff seeks to impose on Defendants substantive duties that are above and beyond those obligations incorporated in the specific contractual terms. In fact, the purported obligations contradict the express terms of the contract. Because this claim is not a bad faith insurance case, plaintiff is also limited to stating a claim within the context of a breach of contract, which he fails to do. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1054) 17200- these claims rest on the above. As explained there was no unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent behavior, thus this claim fails. This cause of action suffers from the same infirmary as the above, and it is procedurally improper because does not clarify who the target defendants are (CRC 2.112). A demurrer is proper for uncertainty under CCP 430.40(f) if a complaint fails to label the defendants and the claims. Misjoinder of Parties- this complaint is subject to dismissal because all parties to the note and deed of trust are not included. The borrower Manjusha Paidhungat is not a party to the complaint. Notwithstanding the above, my client is interested in an early resolution of this case and makes the following offer to settle before any further litigation occurs: If your client agrees to dismiss this case with prejudice, my client will pay him $4,250.00 (total). Each party will bear their own fees and costs and Plaintiff will agree to release SPS and the US Bank Trust from any liability under the complaint. The settlement would need to include not only Sanjiv, but Manjusha as well. Please discuss early settlement as an option with your client and let me know if this is an option. This offer to settle expires at 5:00pm on November 30, 2017. Please make every effort to discuss the details with your client and myself before that date. Cori B. Jones, Esq. 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 610-7013 Direct (949) 608-9142 Fax (949) 477-5050 Main Ext. 1015 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and New Mexico PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5052 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank You. From: Cori B. Jones Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:20 PM To: Stephen Lopez Subject: Paidhungat v. SPS Stephen, give me a call on this case when you get a chance, please. Cori B. Jones, Esq. 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 Newport Beach CA 92660 (949) 610-7013 Direct (949) 608-9142 Fax (949) 477-5050 Main Ext. 1015 Wright, Finlay & Zak: Your Western Regional Counsel for California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and New Mexico PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS FIRM IS A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately at (949) 477-5052 and arrangements will be made for the return of this material. Thank You. 35