Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21STCV25467, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25467    Hearing Date: May 21, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Pinto v. Visconti, Case no. 21STCV25467

Hearing date May 21, 2025

Plaintiff Pinto’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Defendant Visconti’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Previously filed 7/27/23

Defendant Visconti’s Motion re: “Pending Motion Previously filed on 2/7/2022 Titled ‘Amended Motion to Compel Discovery’"

Plaintiff Pinto moves for terminating sanctions. No opposition was filed.

Defendant Visconti moves to renew her previous 2/7/22 motion to compel discovery and her 7/27/23 motion for terminating sanctions. Defendant resubmits previously filed motions verbatim, including former counsel Murphy’s verification and declaration.

Defendant’s motion to compel production is unavailing; discovery has been closed since before defendant’s renewal. Further, plaintiff served verified discovery responses 1/5/23; a motion to compel initial discovery is improper. See Min. Order 6/23/23. Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is predicated on the argument that plaintiff failed to respond to discovery; as previously discussed, this is unavailing. Defendant’s motions are DENIED.

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of: (1) October 10, 2023 Remand Order; (2) February 14, 2025 Remand Order; (3) February 28, 2025 Remand Order; and (4) March 7, 2025 Remand Order. Per Evid. Code §452(d) the court may take judicial notice of records of this court. GRANTED.

“Every court shall have the power to: …preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. To enforce order in the proceedings before it… To provide for the ordering conduct of proceedings before it… To compel obedience to its…  orders, and process…” Code Civ. Proc. §§128(a)(1)-(4). Under this section, “[t]rial courts in California are not… powerless to sanction attorneys [or parties] for improper conduct or to control the proceedings before them to prevent injustice. Thus, trial courts may conduct contempt proceedings, dismiss sham actions, admonish counsel in open court, strike sham pleadings…” Sheller v. Superior Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1710.

“California trial courts possess the inherent power to issue a terminating sanction for pervasive misconduct…” Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 765 [disapproved on unrelated grounds by City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 410, 553]. “California courts have inherent power to terminate litigation for deliberate and egregious misconduct when no other remedy can restore fairness…” Id. at 761. Sanctions are particularly warranted where a party has demonstrated a pattern of abusive and dilatory conduct. Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 292-295.

The court previously sanctioned defendant for improper conduct, including filing “six motions to disqualify Judge Mandel and two removals to federal court.” Min. Order 3/5/24. The court found these motions were “objectively unreasonable, amounting to frivolous conduct for the sole purpose of delay and harassment.” Id. Defendant’s attorney was sanctioned $52,933.50. Min. Order 6/6/24. Neither defendant nor her prior attorney paid any of these sanctions. Decl. Khodadian para. 4.

One month later on 4/26/24 defendant filed another identical motion to disqualify Judge Mandel. See Mot. to Disq. 4/26/24, exh. 11; Decl. Khodadian para. 3. The court issued an order striking the motion to disqualify and sanctioned defendant $250 for violating a prior order prohibiting her from filing additional frivolous motions to disqualify. Min. Order 4/26/24. Defendant subsequently filed another motion to disqualify 9/13/24. See Min. Order 9/13/24.

Defendant also attempted to remove the case to federal court two more times. See RJN 3-4. As of the date of the instant motion, defendant has filed nine motions to disqualify and 4 removals to federal court. Decl. Khodadian para. 24. It is clear that strong admonitions from the court and the threat of (and actual imposition of) monetary sanctions are insufficient to deter defendant’s egregious and pervasive vexatious conduct.

Defendant’s actions have delayed trial by over six months. Decl. Khodadian para. 25. As a result, plaintiff has incurred over $50,000 in additional legal fees and costs and has been forced to release several witnesses. Decl. Khodadian paras. 26, 28. Further, defendant explicitly told plaintiff’s counsel he was “crazy” if he believed trial in this matter would ever occur, demonstrating a clear intent to continue these delay tactics. Decl. Khodadian para. 9.

It is inequitable and prejudicial to continue to allow defendant’s various delay tactics to continue. Defendant has filed repeated motions to disqualify and four attempts to remove to federal court. All these efforts have been unsuccessful. Defendant has failed to pay any of the significant sanctions previously imposed. Defendant has not filed opposition to this motion.

At this time, having previously granted defendant multiple opportunities to participate in this litigation, it appears to this court that defendant has no intent of fully participating in this litigation; rather, it appears defendant’s intent is simply to delay. Defendant’s conduct as a whole constitutes misconduct that is egregious and pervasive. Terminating sanctions are appropriate.

Motion GRANTED; defendant’s answer is stricken.