Thelma Battiste and Charles Haynes v. Auction.Com, Ditech Financial LLC a/k/a Greentree Servicing, and Federal National Mortgage Association

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: July 11, 2022
• Docket: SX-19-CV-228
• Status: Published

Opinion

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