Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

  This case arises from an attorney-client dispute.  Plaintiff Young Chow Dai has sued her former attorneys, Defendants Feldman & Rothstein PC, Anthony Ranieri, Marsha Mao, the Law Office of Mauro Fiore and Krystal Royale.  She alleges they engaged in wrongdoing in connection with a $50,000 settlement she received from the City of Santa Monica for a personal injury action arising out of a bus accident.  Her complaint is not the model of clarity, and it is even unclear what causes of action she is asserting. 

Plaintiff filed a prior complaint against Defendants in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 25.  As with the present complaint, the prior complaint alleged wrongdoing relating to a $50,000 settlement in connection with a bus accident involving Plaintiff.  (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Nos. 1-2; Exs. A&B to Perez Decl.)     

On November 22, 2022, following a long history of litigation misconduct, including Plaintiff’s forgery of opposing counsel’s and the Court’s names on filed documents, the Court in Department 25 dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7: 

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113 in connection with motions filed, failure to prepare for trial, filing multiple and duplicative motions for reconsideration and summary judgment, as well as filing a stipulation with the Court in which Plaintiff fraudulently typed in the signatures of opposing counsel and the Court, the Court finds that Plaintiff has violated CCP Section 128.7 by filing pleadings for an improper purpose, causing unnecessary delay and increasing the cost of litigation. The Court finds that dismissal of the action with prejudice is the only appropriate sanction. (See RJN No. 3; Ex. C to Perez Decl.)  

 

On November 28, 2022, the Court signed an order dismissing the action with prejudice.  (RJN No. 4; Ex. D to Perez Decl.)  Plaintiff did not file a timely appeal, and the judgment was final.  (Perez Decl. ¶5.) 

Following the final judgment, Plaintiff continued to file documents under the original case number including a motion for new trial, a motion to transfer the case to Santa Monica, a motion to vacate judgment, and a motion to vacate default judgment.  (Perez Decl. ¶6.)  Each of these motions was denied.  (Id.) 

On April 8, 2024, the Court declared Plaintiff “to be a vexatious litigant and subject to a pre-filing order, prohibiting the filing of any new litigation in the courts of this state, in propria persona, without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Judge of the court where the litigation is proposed.”  (RJN No. 5, Ex. E to Perez Decl.)   

The Court based its decision on Plaintiff “repeatedly filing numerous motions and actions after entry of final judgment on November 28, 2022 (dismissing her action with prejudice pursuant to CCP §128.7), in an attempt to relitigate the validity of the determination against the same defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined, as well as filing numerous unmeritorious motions, pleadings and other papers which were frivolous and caused unnecessary delay, in violation of CCP § 391(b)(2) and (3).” (RJN No. 5; Ex. E to Perez Decl.) 

The current lawsuit before the Court was filed on February 16, 2024, before the April 8 order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.   

This hearing is on Defendants the Law Office of Mauro Fiore, Krystale L. Rosal and Anthony Ranieri’s (“Moving Defendants”) demurrers.  Moving Defendants argue that (1) the complaint is uncertain because the allegations are incoherent, ambiguous and unintelligible, (2) to the extent Plaintiff is asserting a claim for “unlawful practice of law” and “misconduct,” neither are civil causes of action, (3) to the extent Plaintiff alleges fraud, she has failed to plead it with particularity, and the claim is also time-barred, and (4) Plaintiff’s allegations, while uncertain, appear to be the same as those in Plaintiff’s previous lawsuit against the same Defendants wherein judgment was entered in favor of Defendants and Plaintiff was deemed a vexatious litigant, and therefore, her claims are barred by res judicata.    

LEGAL STANDARD 

A demurrer to a complaint may be general or special.¿ A general demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the ground it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).)¿ A general demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.  (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents).)  For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)  

A special demurrer challenges other defects in the complaint, including whether a pleading is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (f).)¿ The term uncertain means “ambiguous and unintelligible.”¿ (Id.)¿ A demurrer for uncertainty should be sustained if the complaint is drafted in such a manner that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)¿ 

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”); Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 (“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”).)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)  

MEET AND CONFER 

Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41 requires that before the filing of a demurrer, the moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(3).)   

Defendants Law Office of Mauro Fiore and Krystale L. Rosal submit the Declaration of Gilbert Perez III which states Plaintiff and defense counsel met and conferred by telephone on March 18, 2024, more than five days before the date the demurrer was filed, which satisfies the requirements of § 430.41.   

Defendant Anthony Ranieri submits his own declaration which states he tried calling Plaintiff twice to meet and confer on the issues raised in the demurrer, but the phone number on her pleadings was disconnected.  Ranieri then sent an email setting forth the reasons stated in his demurrer, but no response was received.  This satisfies the requirements of § 430.41.   

 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Moving Defendants request judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 18STCV10154), on December 31, 2018; (2) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 18STCV10154), on December 31, 2018; (3) the Court’s minute order in Case No. 18STCV10154, dated November 22, 2022; (4) the Court’s minute order in Case No. 18STCV10154, dated November 28, 2022, and (5) the Court’s minute order in Case No. 18STCV10154, dated April 8, 2024.  The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452(d) and 453. 

DISCUSSION 

The Court agrees with Moving Defendants that the Complaint is largely unintelligible.  Moving Defendants cannot reasonably admit or deny such incoherent allegations and cannot determine what counts are directed against them.  The Court declines to consider (for now) the other arguments raised by Moving Defendants as to why each of the causes of action must fail.  The more efficient approach is to allow Plaintiff leave to clearly state what allegations and causes of action are being alleged against Moving Defendants, rather than evaluating attacks on hypothetical claims.     

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ demurrer with 20 days’ leave to amend.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:  May 14, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court