Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fox Hollow of Turlock v. Richard Sinclair

June 3, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge


Plaintiffs, Defendants and/or Cross Defendants Fox Hollow of Turlock Owners Association ("Fox Hollow"), California Equity Management Group, Inc., ("CEMG") and Andrew Katakis (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents on May 11, 2011. *fn1 The motion was heard on June 3, 2011, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. D. Greg Durbin appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Curtis Rindlisbacher appeared on behalf of Defendant Gregory Mauchley. Neither Richard Sinclair nor Brandon Sinclair made an appearance.


This action consists of three consolidated actions: (1) an action brought by Fox Hollow on April 4, 2003, primarily alleging misuse of association funds in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act by Defendants Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair, Lairtrust LLC, Mauctrst, LLC and Capstone LLC; (2) an action brought by CEMG, the current owner of the development, against Defendants, alleging violation of RICO statutes, conversion of rent proceeds, quiet title and reformation of a written instrument; and (3) an action commenced by Defendants, in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, against CEMG and its principal, Andrew Katakis, alleging breach of Fox Hollow regulations, breach of fiduciary duties and violation of California Corporations Code section 8333.

On July 21, 2010, after obtaining leave of Court, Fox Hollow and CEMG filed a Consolidated Complaint. The Complaint involves an allegedly fraudulent scheme concerning a 35-unit town home complex in Turlock, California, known as Fox Hollow of Turlock ("the Property"). Fox Hollow is the Homeowners' Association for the Property and CEMG is the record owner of lots contained within the Property, the successor in interest to lenders who extended loans secured by lots within the Property, and the assignee of the rights of certain tenants who entered into leases for units within the Property. Defendants and cross-claimants Mauctrst, Lairtrust and Capstone are limited liability companies that were allegedly used to convert Fox Hollow funds, effect property transfers, obtain loans, prosecute dilatory lawsuits and carry out other parts of the alleged schemes that form the basis for the RICO claims in the Consolidated Complaint.

On August 10, 2010, Defendants filed a cross claim against CEMG, Fox Hollow and Andrew Katakis.

Pursuant to the August 20, 2010, Supplemental Scheduling Conference Order, discovery is due by June 15, 2011. Trial is set for December 6, 2011.


Plaintiffs move to compel responses to their Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things, Set Number One. Specifically, Plaintiffs request further responses from Richard Sinclair on Request Numbers 1 through 157, and from Brandon Sinclair on Request Numbers 1 through 135. Plaintiffs also request monetary sanctions.

The Requests for Production were served in December 2010. In January 2011, Defendants provided an identical response to each request: "Existing Exhibits from Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County and Master Document Ex A, attached hereto with supplements to follow when and if located and not privileged or objected to." Declaration of D. Greg Durbin ("Durbin Dec."), ¶ 6. No documents were produced.

After attempts to meet and confer, Richard Sinclair provided a supplemental response in May 2011. The response referenced a list and produced a few documents relating to a 2008 loan and various basic documents related to three other loans. Durbin Dec., ¶ 11, Exh. C.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on May 11, 2011. Despite Plaintiffs' repeated attempts to coordinate the meet and confer process pursuant to Local Rule 251, Mr. Sinclair failed to meaningfully participate in the process and the filing of a joint statement. *fn2 Declaration of Daniel Cho, ¶ 3. As a result, Plaintiffs filed a report in lieu of the joint statement on May 27, 2011. Mr. Sinclair filed an "opposition" on May 31, 2011.


A. Discovery ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.