SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
THELMA BATTISTE AND CHARLES S
i
HAYNES Ch H No SX 2019 CV 228
PLAINTIFFS,
\ l CITE AS 2022 VI SUPER LS
AUCTION COM DITECH FINANCIAL i
LLC A/K/A GREENTREE SERVICING AM) |
1* EDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE I
ASSOCIATION
DEFENDANTS
Appearances
Atiim Dia Abraham, Esq Matthew R Reinhardt, Esq
Law Office of Atiim Dia Abraham LLC Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer P A
St Thomas, b S Virgin Islands Orlando, Florida
P01 Plamlgffs F01 Defendant Federal National
Mo; rgage Assoczazzon
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
1: 1 THIS MATTER is before the Court ma vpome f0] review
BACKGROUND
‘I 2 On May 21 2019 Plaintitt Fhelma Battiste and Plaintiff Charles Haynes (collectively
hereinaftel Plaintiffs ) filed a complaint against Defendant Auction com Defendant Ditech
Financial I LC a/k/a Gleentree Se1vicing (hereinafter Ditech ), and Defendant Federal National
Mongage Association (hereinafter ‘ PNMA’ and togethex with Defendant Auction com and
Defendant Ditech, Defendants ) According to the proofs of service filed Defendants were
served
‘f 3 On June 20 2019 Defendant Ditech and Defendant FNMA filed a joint answer in response
to the complaint and a copy of Defendant Ditech 3 notice of bankruptcy filing and imposition of
automatic stay
1 4 On Nox embe1 4 2020 the Court enteled an Older whereby the Court inter alia denied
Defendant Ditech and Defendant FNMA s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and ordered
that any pending claims against Delendam Ditech to be automatically stay ed
Batnste er a] v Auction com 6! a!
3X 20l9 CV 228 e
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER S.
Page 2 of 10
ll 5 On N0vembe1 E9 2020 Plaintiffs and Defendant FNMA filed a proposed stipulated
scheduling order which was subsequently approved and accepted as the scheduling order in this
matter in an order entered on December 4 2020
E6 On February 25 2021 Defendant Ditech filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction which was subsequentlv granted by the Court and Defendant Bitech was dismissed
without prejudice in an elder entered on June 25 202E
E7 In March 202} Defendant FNMA propound its first set of interrogatories and first request
for production of documents to ?laintiffs On July 28 2021, Defendant FNMA filed a motion to
compel discox ery responses On November 30, 2021, Defendant FNMA filed a motion for
sanctions and attorney 3 fees
ll 8 On May 5, 2022, the palti€S appeared for a status conference Yohana M Manning Esq
appeared for Plaintiffs and Matthew R0be1t Reinhardt Esq appeared for Defendant FNMA After
being adVised of the status the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendant FNMA s
motions and adx ised Plaintiffs that failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this matter
‘11 9 On May 20, 2022 Yohana M Manning, Esq and Atiim Dia Abraham Esq filed a
stipulation for the substitution of Atiirn Dia Ablaham Esq for Yohana M Manning, Esq as the
counsel of rec01d for Plaintiffs
El 10 On June 9, 2022 the Court entered an order wheieb} the Coutt ordeled intel alia that,
within fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this Order. Plaintifts shall file a response to
Defendant FNMA s luly 28 2021 motion to compel discovery responses and Defendant FNMA’S
November 30, 2021 motion for sanctions and attomey s fees,’ that “[f]ailure to comply may result
in sanctions including the dismissal of this matter ’ and that “Plaintiffs are hereby notified that
once the fifteen day petiod has expired, the Court will rule or: Defendant FNMA pending motions
tegardless of whethez [Piaintiftsl filed a lesponse the1eto ’ ' (June 9, 2022 Order ) The fifteen clay
‘ 1n the June 9 2022 order the Court explained
As noted above Defendant FNMA 3 Jul) 28 2021 motion to compel discovery responses and Defendant
FNMA 3 November 20 2021 motion for sanctions and attorney 5 fees are currentl} pending At the May 5
2022 status conference the Court the Conn ordelecl Plaintiffs to file a response :0 Defendant FNMA s
motions within thil ty days The thirty day period has since passed and as of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs
have not filed a response to Defendant 5 FNMA s motions However, given that Atiim Die Abraham Esq
substituted in as the counsel of record for PEaintiffs after the May 3‘ 2022 status confezence and said ordet
was never leduced to m hing, it is unclean whether Atiim Ola Abraham, Esq was aware of this deadline As
such the Court will sua sponte grant additional time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant FNMA s motions
Baluste e! a! v AllClIOn com er a1
:1):Ii21?)i‘:nfl:r§7(8)pinion and Order 2022 V] SUPER 6L).
Page a 0f 10
period has since passed and as of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed their responses to
Defendant FNMA s pending motions
i? ll On July 6, 2022 Plaintiffs filed a notice of service of Plaintiffs responses to Defendant
FNMA s discox cry requests
DISCUSSION
1: 12 Defendant FNMA 5 July 28 2021 motion to compel discovery responses and Defendant
FNMA 3 November 30 2021 motion for sanctions and attorney 3 fees are both pending In its
November 30 2021 motion Defendant FNMA moved for the sanction of dismissal Thus the
Court “ill rule on this motion first since it may moot the other pending motion
I Defendant FNMA’s November 30, 2021 Motion for Sanctions and Attorney ’s Fees
1! 13 In its motion Defendant FNMA argued that “{g]iven Plaintiffs’ blatant disregard for the
authorit) of this Conn and theii [esponsibilities of discovery under the 1ules, dismissal of
Plaintiffs Complaint is appropriate and an entry of an award for all of Fannie Mae 5 attorneys
fees accrued to date is warranted ’ but [i]n the event the Court does not belieVe dismissal is
appropriate the Court should alternatively find that Plaintiffs are prohibited from supporting their
designated claims, opposing [Defendant FNMA s] defenses or intioducing matters in evidence
[and] entei an award of reasonable attorneys fees to [Defendant FNMA] for costs incurred as a
iesult 0f Plaintiffs blatant refusal to comply With the Court 9 Rules and their discover)
obligations (Motion 5) Defendant FNMA made the following assertions in support of its
argument (i) Throughout the cou1se of this litigation Plaintiffs have inexplicably failed to
comply with their discovery obligations (Id , at 1); (ii) In violation of the Court 5 December 3
2020 Scheduling Order, Plaintiffs have neither sewed initial disclosmes pursuant to V I R CIV P
26(a)(l) nor provided responses to Fannie Mae 3 discovery 1equests’ and [d]espite numerous
good faith attempts by [Defendant FNMA] t0 resolxe Plaintiffs noncompliance, Plaintiffs remain
in Violation of the Court 5 Scheduling Order and obligations under the Ccurt 5 Rules (Id ); (iii)
Defendant FNMA filed a motion to compel which Plaintiffs did not oppose (Id at 3); (iv) To
date Plaintiffs have neglected to prosecute theit claims and have inexplicably refused to
participate in discovery iespond to discovery requests or serve initial discloswes as tequired by
the Coutt 5 Rules and Scheduling Ordei (Id at 4) (v) The Couit may also ordei additional
(June 9 2022 Order)
Banish) e! a] » Auctioncom era]
:1):Ifi%::n%:hizgpinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 1’25
Page 4 of 10
sanctions f0: failure to selve initiaE disclosures or failure to respond to written discm er} demands,
including an} of the orders Iisted in Rules 37(b)(2)(A)(i) (Vi) 37(c)(1)(C) and 37(d)(3) which
includes ‘striking pieadings in whole or in part and ‘ dismissing the action or proceeding in whole
or in part (Id , at 4 5), (vi) For nearly three years, Plaintiffs have done nothing to prosecute their
claims or furthez this litigation (Id , at 5) (x ii) PEaintiffs inexcusable neglect is unduly
prejudiciai (id ); and (viii) Plaintiffs failule to p1 oxide discovery has effectixely iimited
[Defendant FNMA} ability to defend against the claims alleged in their Complaint (Id )
A Standard of Review
‘1 14 Rule 37 of the Virgin Isiands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter Rule 37 ) plovides
that [i]f a part} fails to obey an order to provide or permit discox ery, including an order under
Rule 266), 35, 01 37(a) the court whele the action is pending may issue furtherjust orders [and]
may include the foilovting (i) dizecting that the matters embraced in the ordet or other
designated facts be taken as established €01 purposes of the action as the p1 evailing party claims
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient part} from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses
or horn inttoducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action 01 ploceeding
in whole or in part (vi) rendering a detauit judgment against the disobedient 921113}, or (vii) treating
as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a p11} sical or mental
examination V i R CW P 37(b)(2)(A) Rule 37 fuzther provides that {ihlstead of or in addition
to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney adVising that party, or
both to pay the leasonable expenses including attorney's fees caused by the failure, unless the
failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust ” V I
R Cit» P 37(b)(2)(C)
B Analysis regarding Sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)
1’; 15 Here Plaintiffs did not dispute since they did not file an opposition to Deiendant
FNMA’S motion that the) have failed to obey the scheduiing order and provide discovery
responses by the deadlines set forth therein 2 Thus the Court has discretion to impose sanctions
The Court acknowledges that on July 6 2022 Plaintiffs fiEed a notice advising the Court that Plaintiffs have filed
their responses to Defendant FNMA’s discovery responses on Sui)! S, 2022 However the Court finds this action too
little too late, and does not negate Plaintiffs continuous disregard of the deadlines set forth in the scheduting order
and the Court 5 verbaE order at the May 5 2022 status conference and the june 9 2022 order ordering Plaintiffs to file
a response to Defendant FNMA s Juiy 28, 2021 motion to compel discovery responses and Defendant FNMA s
Battmle e! a! v Auction com 2! a]
8X 20% CV 228
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER £2 5
Page J of 10
upon Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(b) including the discretion to dismiss this action as requested
by Detendant FNMA See V I R CW P 37(b)(2)(A) Howevei before the Court imposes the
admittedly harsh sanction of dismissal for noncompliance with discovery the Court will consider
the six Poul” factOIS 3
‘7 16 In Hallzday t Footlocker S‘peczalry Inc , the Virgin Isiands Supreme Court adopted the six
P014115 factors and held that ‘ the Superior Court may not dismiss an action f01 failure to prosecute
unless these six [P011115] factms strongly weigh in fax or of dismissal as a sanction 53 V I 505
5E1 (V I 2010) The six Poulzs factors are
(l) the extent ofthe party‘s peisonal responsibility (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused
by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discm ery_ (3) a history 01
dilatoriness, (4) whether the conduct of the part} or the attorney was willful or in bad faith
(5) the effectiveness of sanctions othei than dismissal, which entails an analysis of
alternative sanctions) and (6) the meritoriousness 0f the claim or defense
140110} 1 Independent Blue (row 56 VI 155 185 86 (VI 2012) (quoting Paul” 747
F 2d at 868)
In Molloy the Virgin Islands Supreme Court instructed that [allthough a trial court is not required
to find that all the factms weigh in favo: of dismissal t0 uanant dismissal of the claim the court
must explicitly consider all six factors, balance them, and make express findings ’ 56 V I 155,
186 (V I 2012) (citations omitted) In other WOldS the extreme sanction of dismissal is resert ed
tor instances in Which a tiial court makes appropriate findings to all six factors and [Mithout
them the di astie sanction of dismissal cannot be warranted Id (citations omitted)
November 30 2021 motion f0: sanctions and attorney 5 fees In fact in their notice Plaintiffs éid not even bathe: to
expiain why it took Plaintiffs over a yea: to piovide the discovea) responses to Defendant FNMA or ask for an
extension of the discoveiy deadlines
Pouln v Tiara) Faun rue & Cas (.0 747 F 2d 863 868 (3d Cit E984)
The Court is cognizant that the Virgin tslands Supreme Coutt has oral} addressed the use of the Poul” factors in cases
involving involuntary dismissal as a sanction for failure to prosecute See Hallway v Footlocke: Specml'ty Inc
53
VI 505 (Vi 2010) Molloy v Independent Blue Cross
56 VI 155 (VI 2012) In Halllda} the Virgin Islands
Supreme Com inéicated that the} agree[d} with the Third Circuit that an appellate court possesses an obiigation to
assure that the extieme sanction of dismissaE or default is reserved for the instances in “hich it is justly merited anti
thus concluded that ‘dismissal as a sanction for failure to prosecute cannot be warranted unless 3 Mai court makes
appropriate findings with respect to alt six factors and concludes that, on baEance, dismissai is warranted ’ 53 V l at
5l E (internal quotation marks omitted) Thus, the Court finds that regardless of whether the sanction of dismissal is
for noncompliance with discover or f0: faiime to piosecute the Court has the same obligation to assuie that the
extreme sanction ofdismissal is reserV ed tor the instances in which it is just!) merited by making appropriate findinas
with respect to all six Pam'm factm s
Bums“; e! a] \ Aucmmcom elal
fifiiiinilizépim..and
Page 6 of 10
Order mmsupm 6'5
1 Thelma Battiste and Charles Haynes’ Personal Responsibility
1’ 17 Heie Thelma Battiste and Charles Haynes are repiesented by counsel This factor focuses
on whethel it was the clients Thelma Battiste and Charles Haynes—or their attorney who is
responsible for noncompliance with discovely Here, there is no direct evidence that Thelma
Battiste and Charles Haynes themselves were responsible for the noncompliance with discovery
In fact there is no indication that they were even aware of the disclosures and discover)
requirements As such this factor weighs against dismissal
2 Prejudice t0 the AdV ersary
Ti 18 In M0110} the W1 gin Islands Supreme Coult stated that [p]reiudice to the opposing patty
is generally demonstrated by either increased expense to the opposing party arising from the extra
costs associated with filings responding to dilatory behaVior or increased difficulty in the opposing
parties' ability to present 01 defend their claim(s) due to the improper behavior’ 56 VI at
189 (LIIII’Ig P011115
747 F 2d at 868) According to Defendant FNMA Plaintiffs still haxe not
served their initial disclosules While it is true that Plaintiffs iecently provided the discovery
responses, it was provided mm a yeat atter Defendant FNMA propounded the discovery requests
With the passage of time exidence could be lost memories could tade and witnesses could
disappeal 01 become unavailable As with any case a lengthy delay will certainly make it [none
difficult f01 the defendant to defend against the claims In fact Defendant FNMA pointed out in
theil motion that ‘Plaintiffs failure to provide discoxery has effectively limited its ability to
defend against the claims alleged in their Complaint (Motion 5 ) As such this factor weighs in
fat 01 of dismissal
3 A History of Dilatoriness
‘ 19 A history of dilatoriness is characterized by a consistent delay by the plaintiff‘s counsel
Gilbeztv Gilbeit 2017VI LEXIS 143 at *8 (Super Ct Sep 11 2017) (citing Faults 747 F 2d
at 868) A review of the file and the docket 1e\ ealed that Plaintiffs have been diiatory in the
discoxer) process to wit (1) Plaintiffs have not sen ed their initial disclosutes; (ii) it took
Plaintiffs oter a year to prOVide iesponses t0 Defendant FNMA s discox ery requests; (iii)
Plaintiffs have not complied with deadlines set forth in the scheduling order (iv) Plaintiffs failed
to comply with the Court’s verbal order at the Ma) 5, 2022 status conference and the June 9 2022
01de1 ordering Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendant FNMA 3 July 28 2021 motion to compel
Baltztte eta! t 411Ctl(m(.0m et (1]
8X 2019 CV 228
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER €78,
Page 7 of 10
discovery responses and Defendant FNMA’s November 30 2021 motion for sanctions and
attorney 3 fees As such this factor weighs strongly in faVor of dismissal
4 Offending Party/Attorney’s Conduct Willful or in Bad Faith
1‘ 20 In Molloy the Supreme Court stated that the tlial court must point to specific evidence to
justify its determination of willfulness or bad faith 56 V I at 192 Thus if there is no evidence
of willfulness or bad faith on the record the Court must presume the party/attorney’s conduct was
not willful or in bad faith Id Here Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to comply with the Court 8 orders
to wit the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order and the Court’s verbal order at the May 5,
2022 status confelence and the June 9 2022 order ordering Plaintiffs to file a response to
Defendant FNMA 3 Jul) 28 2021 motion to compel discover} responses and Detendant FNMA 5
November 30 2021 motion 101 sanctions and attorney 3 fees Accmdingly them is specific
eVidence to justify a determination that Plaintiffs conduct was willful or in bad faith As such this
factor weighs in few or of dismissal
5 Effectiveness of Alternate Sanctions
f 21 C 0u1ts must look to other apploptiate methods of sanctioning before dismissal for failure
to prosecute because {dJismissal must be a sanction of last not first resort (Illbelf 2017 V I
LEXIS 143 at *10 (citing Faults 747 F 2d at 869) Here some alternate sanctions include
excluding evidence, plecluding witnesses, striking portions of the pleadings or imposing monetary
sanctions 9&2 Id However none of these alternatives are appiopriate he1e because in taking
everything into consideration such as the fact that Plaintiffs hate made zero effort to comply
with the deadlines set fonh in the scheduling ordei and Plaintiffs repeated disobedience of the
Court 5 orders the Coult finds that there lacks a clea1 interest on Plaintills part to pursue this
mattei As such this factor weighs in faVOI of dismissal
6 Meritoriousness of the Claim
‘3 22 In consideling whether a claim or defense appears to be meritorious for this inquiry we
do not pulport to use summary judgment standards A claim, or defense will be deemed
meti101ious when the allegations of the pleadings it established at tiial would suppoxt recovely
by plaintiff 01 would constitute a complete defense 8'66 Gilbert 2017 V l IIXIS 143 at "‘10
(quoting Poulzs 747 F 2d at 869 70) In their complaint, Plaintiffs did not set forth any counts
designating specific causes of action as requiled undei Rule 8 0f the Vilgin Islands Rules of Civil
Balmte er a! t Auction com 9! a!
SX 2019 CV 228 Y
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 V! SU?ER 12
Page 8 of £0
Procedute 4 While it appears that Piaintiffs alleged an unjust enrichment cause of action against
Defendant FNMA,J it is unclean Which facts are applicable thereto Plaintiffs cannot and shouid
not expect the Court to parse through Plaintiffs altegation and decipher which facts satisfy the
elements of theit claim The Court cannot do ?Eaintiffs job for them Cf Joseph v Joseph 205
V I LEXIS 43 *5 (V I Super Ct Apr 23 2015) ( [I]n general the Court wilt not make a
mo» ant's arguments for him when he has taiied to do so ) As such this factor weighs in favo: of
dismissal
‘5 23 Having examined the six Poul” factors regaréing the dismissal of this matter for
noncompliance with discovery, the Coutt finds that one factor weighs against dismissal and the
‘ The V11 gin islands Rules of Civt1 Procedutes went into effect on March 3! 2017
5 1n theit comptaint Piaintiffs alleged
1 Plaintiffs ate senior citizens and residents of St Ctoix US Virgin Islands
2 Defendant AUCTION COM is a California Corporation doing business in the Virgin 1sEancts
3 Defendant Ditech Financiat LLC A’K/A Greentree Servicing is a bankruptcy mortgage servicer that has been
cited for unscrupulous mortgage ptaetices
4 Defendant Fannie Mae (heteinafter FNMA is a federalEy chartered corponation that participates in the
secondaty mortgage matket B) statute FNMA has the power to sue and to be sued and to complain and to
defend in any court ofcompetentjurisdietion State or Federal ’ 12 U S C S l723(a)(a) The U S Supreme
Court has heid that federal courts do not have exclusive subject matter jutisdiction over suits invoEving
FNMA Ilgl’llfoolt Cendam Mattg (0);) 137 S Ct 553 56E (2017)
5 The Plaintiffs ate the react ti owners of
PEot No 8 M Estate Clifton FIRE King Quarter St Cloix U S thin Islands consisting ofO 232 U S aete
mete or less as mete fulty shown on O L G Drawing No 3150 dated August 22 I973 ( Property )
6 PEaintiff rhelma Battiste is a retiree from the Virgin Islands Department of Education having worked for the
Vitgin Islands Govetnment for forty five yeats (45) years [sic]
7 For aimost one year the Plaintiff “as not Ieceiving a retirement check and therefore the Plaintiff was in
alrears
8 When Piaintiff started receiving hen retirement check she sent a check to counsel for Flagstar bank who
refused to accept the check untess his fees wane covered Ms Battiste attempted to pay his fees in two
instathnents and he refused
9 Nevertheless Ptaintiffs obtained a modification and became current on her payments In the meantime
FNMA assumed the mongage and Plaintiff thereafter began paying Ditech
E0 As a tesult of damage caused by the Hunicane Plaintiff received an insurance check €01 $73 581 jointl) in
the name of Greentree Servictng and the Plaintiffs The check was received in June 2018
I 1 Plaintiff conducted an extractdinaty amount of work to the residence to make it habitabie
12 On July 16 2018 Plaintiffs endorsed the check transmitted the check to Greentree and explained that the
repair to the tesidence would only require $23 581 83 and to credit the remainder to the mortgage, to bring
said mortgage current
13 Instead, Greentree forwarded the entite amount to FNMA and thereafter provided no credit to the PEaihtiffs
14 In August 2018 the sale of Piaintitf’s home to Greenttee was confirmed
15 FNMA contracted with AUCTION COM to sell the subject property
16 Plaintiffs not wanting to lose their home supplied the winning biti of $98. 888
17 Plaintiffs are therefore seeking a setoff of S73 S81 8.: against the winning bid of the subject property
18 Moreovel Defendant FNMA has been unjustI) enriched
(Compl )
Bamste e! a! v Auction com e! a!
migi‘gncdznfzgpinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER ()5,
Page 9 of 10
factors weigh in favor of dismissal (with one factor a history of dilatoriness weighing strongly
in favor) In this instance the Court finds the extreme sanction of dismissal is warranted 9ee
Wolloy 56 V I at 186 ( Although a trial court is not required to find that all the factors weigh in
tavor of dismissal to warrant dismissal of the claim the court must explicitly consider all six
factors, balance them and make express findings )
C Analysis regarding Attorney’s Fees under Rule 37(b)(2)(C)
1* 24 Here, Plaintiffs did not indicate since they did not file an opposition to Defendant
FNMA s motion that the failure for thei1 noncompliance with discovery was substantially
justified 01 that other circumstances would make an aw ard of expenses unjust As noted above
undei Rule 37 [i]nstead of or in addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient
party the attorney advising that party 01 both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney 5
fees caused by the failule unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances
make an award of expenses unjust V I R ClV P 37(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added) Thus, the Court
will award leasonable expenses including attorney 5 fees that Defendant FNMA incurred in
connection with their July 28, 2021 motion to compel discox er} responses and November 30 2021
motion for sanctions and attomey s fees which were filed due to Plaintiffs” noncompliance with
discox cry Since the Court already determined above that there is no direct evidence that Thelma
Battiste and Charles Ha} nes themselx es were responsible for the noncompliance with discox ery,
the Court will order the attorney advising Plaintiffs to personally for the expenses Although Atiim
Die Abraham, Esq is the current counsel of iecord for Plaintiffs he did not substitute in for Yohana
M Manning Esq until May 20 2022 so YohanaM Manning, Esq , the former counsel of recoxd
was mainl} responsible im the noncompliance with discovery As such, the Court will order
Yohana M Manning, Esq to pe1 sonally pay for the expenses
11 Defendant FNMA’s Jul) 28, 2021 Motion to Compel Discm ery Responses
" 25 In light 0fthe Court 5 finding above, Defendant FNMA 5 July 28 2021 motion to compel
is mooted
CONCLUSION
¢ 26 Based on the foregoing the Court will grant in the entirety Defendant FNMA’s NOV ember
30, 2021 motion for sanctions and for attorney 5 fees, dismiss this matter without prejudice f01
Plaintiffs noncompliance with discover) 01det Yohana M Manning, Esq to pay reasonable
Balmle eta! v Auction com ctal
SX 2019 CV 228 8g”
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 V1 SUPER
Pace 10 of 10
expenses including att01ney’s fees, and close this matter since there are no other pending issues 6
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant FNMA 5 July 28 2021 motion to compel is DENIED AS
MOOT It is further
ORDERED that Defendant FNMA’S November 30, 2021 motion for sanctions and
attorney 5 fees is GRANTED in the entirety It is furthel
ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE It is further
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Defendant FNMA shall file a notice describing the reasonable expenses,
including attomey s fees that Defendant FNMA incurred in connection with their July 28 2021
motion to compel discovery responses and November 30 2021 motion for sanctions and attorney 3
fees and including all supporting documents and Yohana M Manning, Esq shall PAY
Defendant INMA f01 such expenses within thirty (30) days from the date the notice is filed It
is iulthet
ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED And it is turther
ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order is served on Yohana M
Manning, I< sq Via electronically
D01“: and so ORDERED this i E day of July 2022
/ “x /
/ // (7’6, ’
ATTEST C/Q (j (W
Tamara Charles HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
Clerk of the Court Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
4%1/4
EV
Dated 2 1%;
Ccum C leik upei sor
" In an cadet entered contempmaneously “ith this Memorandum Opinion and Order Plaintiffs claim(s) against
Defendant Auction com were dismissed without prejudice