Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV00801, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00801    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 3-4-24

Case # 22CHCV00801, Margarita Maria Carranza vs. Atty Tigran Martinian, et al.

Trial Date: Not Set

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Martinian & Associates, Inc. and Tigran Martinian

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Margarita Carranza, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Designate Plaintiff Margarita Carranza a Vexatious Litigant

RULING: Motion to Designate Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Defendants Martinian & Associates, et al., (Defendants) represented Plaintiff Margarita Carranza (Plaintiff) in an action against the County of Los Angeles, et al., for Negligence, Government Tort Liability, and Premises Liability (19STCV05567). According to Plaintiff, the case settled for $50,000, which led to a (contingency recovery) fee of $25,000. Plaintiff expected a net payment of $25,000, but when presented with the final check, additional “expenses” were also deducted, thereby leading to a net payment of “20K.” The expenses included medical “liens,” which Plaintiff contends were never “authorized.”

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint for Breach of Contract and General Negligence. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for “Attorney Misconduct.” The first amended complaint contains a conformed copy of a December 8, 2022, filed “Request to Re-Open Complaint,” as well as a Breach of Contract, General Negligence, and Fraud attachments.

On March 15, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer of defendants to the first amended complaint for “Attorney Misconduct” with 30 days leave to amend. On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff, still in pro per, filed a second amended complaint for Fraud, though the caption identifies additional causes of action. On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an “addendum” to the second amended complaint again with only the fraud cause of action attachment and additional exhibits, plus new allegations. 

On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed eight (8) requests for dismissals for the following defendants: Robert Yaspan, Brian Kuhn, Fennia Hakobyan, Sevana Vatazarian, Philip Craft, Ronald Whittaker, Jonathan Berger, and D.A. Lucas.

On November 6, 2023, Defendants filed their motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion.

ANALYSIS

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

The court takes judicial notice of the existence of the court filings and court docket for purposes of establishing the existence of the purported conduct, but cannot take judicial notice of the content of any and all items for the truth of the matter asserted.

Defendants Martinian & Associates and Tigran Martinian move to designate plaintiff Margarita Carranza, in pro per, a vexatious litigant, and require the posting of a bond in order to continue with the litigation. Defendants summarize the basis for the request based on continued e-mails to defendants even following a stipulation to limit or stop said emails; “frivolous” motions to reopen a dismissed action (19STCV05567); addition of Defendants as parties to a separate lawsuit (22STCV17802); the prosecution of two other lawsuits (22STCV06945 & 22STCV13981), whereby Plaintiff seeks to relate the subject cases to the instant action; and, a general statement of “abusive” tactics to “bully” and/or “annoy” Defendants and counsel.

Plaintiff in opposition requests the court “dismiss” the motion. Plaintiff reiterates the basis of “fraud” in the disbursement of the settlement proceeds. Plaintiff also addresses the disposition of two cases apparently as an effort to establish the validity of the complaints.

Defendants in reply first notes the unserved, late filed opposition to the motion. Defendants then reiterate the argument regarding the conflation of cases and systematic efforts to relitigate the subject action.

CCP § 391(b) defines a vexatious litigant as a person engaged with the court and conducting any of the following activities:

“(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions, pleads, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

(4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence.” (CCP § 391(b).)

Defendants represent the filing of five actions: Carranza v. City of Los Angeles (19STCV05567), Carranza v. El Super (22STCV17802), Carranza v. Rinaldi Convalescent (22STCV06945), Carranza, et al. v. California Department of Health and Human Services (22STCV13981); and Carranza v. Martinian, et al. (22CHCV00801). Carranza v. City of Los Angeles was the underlying case in the subject action and is now dismissed. Carranza v. El Super was dismissed by Department 27 in the Spring Street Courthouse on November 8, 2023. Carranza v. Rinaldi Convalescent currently remains pending before Department F47 in the Chatsworth Courthouse. Carranza v. California Department of Health and Human services dismissed with prejudice on December 1, 2023, following a motion to dismiss.

The dismissed El Super case was an attempt to sue Martinian and Suzanna Abrahamian, the mediator from the original case against the City of Los Angeles. Abrahamian and Martinian have filed a pending motion in the current case to stop Plaintiff’s harassment. Plaintiff’s harassment included repeated emails to Martinian regarding the judgment from the City of Los Angeles (Campo Decl., Ex. A); comments on Martinian’s Instagram page accusing him of embezzling her settlement money (Martinian Decl., Ex. 1); and comments on Abrahamian’s Facebook page that also accuse Martinian of embezzling funds, as well as messages to Abrahamian through Facebook Messenger (Abrahamian Decl., Ex. 1).

Further evidence of Plaintiff’s harassing conduct includes the motion for summary judgment that she filed in the City of Los Angeles case in March 2023. That motion was denied because that case had already been dismissed.

Finally, on December 4, 2023, the Court issued a stay of further action by Plaintiff pending the outcome of the hearing on this vexatious litigant motion, but on February 7, 2024, she filed both a petition for writ of attachment and a petition to confirm an arbitrated attorney’s fee award even though there has been no arbitration in this case. On February 22, 2024, the Court took the hearing on the writ of possession off calendar because of the stay, pending the outcome of the hearing on this motion.

While Plaintiff filed the requisite minimum of five cases in the last seven years, due to the remaining pending case, the Court cannot render the actions as automatically qualifying for vexatious litigant designation under CCP § 391(b)(1).

However, CCP § 391(b)(2) may apply. A self-represented individual may be declared vexatious if: (1) he/she relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona either (i) the validity of an earlier final determination against the same defendant or (ii) any of the claims or issues reasonably subsumed within the earlier actions. (CCP § 391(b)(2); see also Holcomb v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1504.) The act of repeating identical rejected arguments, even in the same proceeding, is vexatious. (First W Dev. 5 Corp. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 860, 870; Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior 6 Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 838.)

To this end, what qualifies as “repeated” and “unmeritorious” tactics falls within the trial court’s discretion. (Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 971-972 (dozens of motions in a single action); Galin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 632 (multiple requests for the same relief or for reconsideration of prior rulings).) To this end, a plaintiff’s actions are unmeritorious where the repeated motions are devoid of merit, frivolous, constitute a “flagrant abuse of the system,” have “no reasonable probability of success,” lack “reasonable or probable cause or excuse” and are clearly meant to “abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants.” (Morton, supra, at 972; Bravo, supra, at 226.)

In the event a plaintiff’s conduct satisfies the above test, the court may require them to furnish security and/or dismiss the litigation. (CCP §§ 391, 391.1). Determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant is squarely within the court’s discretion. (Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 219.)

Here, Plaintiff’s conduct clearly falls within the bounds contemplated by CCP § 391(b)(2). She has attempted to relitigate the same case on multiple occasions. Beyond the previously discussed harassing emails and comments, she has also done other things to abuse the process and harass the other litigants, including submitting complaints to the State Bar as to the attorneys involved in each of the lawsuits without a rational basis and filing reports with LAPD regarding her settlement funds that she alleges she is due. (Motion at p. 12.) Based on this, Plaintiff meets the definition of a vexatious litigant.

The Court next considers the viability of the subject case presented for purposes of determining the necessity of posting security in order to proceed. “The motion for an order requiring plaintiff to furnish security shall be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiffs is a vexatious litigation and that there is not a reasonable probability that he or she will prevail in the litigation.” (CCP §§ 391.1(a), 391.3(a).)

Based on the previous demurrers to Plaintiff’s pleadings in this case and the earlier cases, there is not a reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail against Defendants. Therefore, the Court orders the posting of a security.

The statute requires the plaintiff to furnish security “for the benefit of the moving defendant, security in such amount and within such time as the court shall fix.” (CCP § 391.3(a).) “The vexatious litigant statutes were enacted to require a person found a vexatious litigant to put up security for the reasonable expenses of a defendant who becomes the target of one of these obsessive and persistent litigants whose conduct can cause serious financial results to the unfortunate object of his attack. The purpose of the statutory scheme is to deal with the problem created by the persistent and obsessive litigant who has constantly pending a number of groundless actions, often against the judges and other court officers who decide or were concerned in the decision of previous actions adversely to him.” (Holcomb v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1504.) Given the complaint is against Defendants, damages come from a potentially successful claim and attorney fees defending the action. (Muller v. Tanner (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 445, 452 [“the amount of the security is defined as the moving party’s ‘reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and not limited to taxable costs, incurred in, or in connection with’ the litigation”].)

The Court cannot determine the reasonable expenses for attorney fees and costs at this point. The Court will therefore set a supplemental briefing schedule to determine the amount of security. Defendants are ordered to submit a supplemental brief in support of the security amount. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the security order could lead to dismissal of the action. (CCP § 391.4.)

“In addition to any other relief provided in this title, the court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.” (CCP § 391.7(a).) The presiding judge “shall permit the filing of that litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for purposes of harassment or delay” and “may condition the filing of the litigation upon the furnishing of security for the benefit of the defendants. (CCP § 391.7(b).)

The Court enters a prefiling order prohibiting Carranza from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the court.

Defendants motion declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and subject her to security and pre-filing requirements is granted.

Defendants to give notice.