Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV00801, Date: 2024-12-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV00801 Hearing Date: December 26, 2024 Dept: F43
Case # 22CHCV00801, Margarita Maria Carranza vs. Atty
Tigran Martinian, et al.
Trial Date: None.
POST-TRIAL HABEAS CORPUS VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT MOTION
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Margarita Carranza, pro per
RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Tigran Martinian and Martinian
& Associates, Inc.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Vacate May 3, 2024 Order requiring Plaintiff Margarita
Carranza to post security in the amount of $75,000.00.
RULING: The motion is denied.
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 this
action against Defendants alleging Breach of Contract and General Negligence. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint (FAC) for “Attorney Misconduct.” The FAC contains a conformed copy of a
“Request to Re-Open Complaint” filed on December 8, 2022, as well as Breach of
Contract, General Negligence, and Fraud attachments.
On March 15, 2023, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer
to the FAC for “Attorney Misconduct” with 30 days leave to amend. On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff, still in pro per,
filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for Fraud, although the caption
identifies additional causes of action. On
May 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an “addendum” to the SAC 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 a motion to declare
Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The
Court granted the motion on March 4, 2024.
The Court also entered a prefiling order prohibiting Carranza from
filing any new litigation in the California in propria persona without first
obtaining leave of the court.
On May 3, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to post a security
bond in the amount of $75,000.00 to cover Defendants’ reasonable expenses
within 60 days—July 3, 2024. The Court
informed Plaintiff that failure to post the bond would result in dismissal of
the case against moving Defendants. Plaintiff
did not post the security.
On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application
for a Writ of Possession, a Request to File New Litigation, a motion to Vacate
the Vexatious Litigant Order, and an application to Vacate the Vexatious
Litigant $100,000.00 Bond. The Court
denied each application and motion and dismissed the case without prejudice on July
18, 2024.
On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request for a New
Trial. On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff
filed a motion for post-trial habeas corpus vexatious litigant. The Court vacated the motion hearing.
On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed this “Motion for
Post-Trial Habeas Corpus Vexatious Litigant.”
Defendants filed an opposition on December 11, 2024.
Summary of Arguments
Plaintiff
moves to vacate the Court’s May 3, 2024 ruling ordering Plaintiff to post a
$75,000.00 security bond to cover Defendants’ reasonable expenses. Plaintiff alleges she did not annoy or harass
Defendants by filing documents against them.
She was exercising her legal right to require Defendants to produce
mandatory production of settlement agreements from other cases.
In
opposition, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s habeas corpus motion is really a
motion for reconsideration and another attempt to extort and harass them. Plaintiff is attempting to weave a conspiracy
narrative that Defendants settled a previous slip and fall case without
Plaintiff’s permission and withheld the settlement funds. Plaintiff has continually threatened
Defendants with a class action lawsuit, submitted complaints to the California
State Bar, and filed police reports with the LAPD to arrest Defendants for
hiding the settlement money. After the
Court designated Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant, she continues her harassing
behavior through systematic efforts to relitigate this case. Defendants request $810.00 in sanctions.
ANALYSIS
Habeas
Corpus Petitions
“A
petition for writ of habeas corpus initiates judicial proceedings to determine
the lawfulness of the petitioner’s confinement.” (In re Martinez (2009) 46 Cal.4th 945,
955.) The purpose of a habeas corpus
petition is to provide “relief to those unjustly incarcerated when the
normal method of relief—i.e., direct appeal—is inadequate.” (In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813,
828 [emphasis added]; In re Lucero 200 Cal.App.4th 38, 46; Pen. Code, §
1473, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff
is not currently in custody or confined based on the Court’s March 3 and May 3
orders, nor is this a criminal case. Although
Plaintiff titles her motion “habeas corpus,” the essence of the motion asks the
Court to reconsider and vacate its May 3 order.
Therefore, the Court analyzes Plaintiff’s motion under Civil Procedure
Code section 1008.
Motion
for Reconsideration
A motion
for reconsideration asks the court to modify, amend, or revoke its earlier
order on a prior motion to the court because of new or different facts,
circumstances, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) A party may move for reconsideration based on:
(1) new or different facts; (2) new or different circumstances; and (3) new or
different law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008,
subd. (a); Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192,
1196.) The moving party must file the
motion within 10 days after service of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)
The Court
may not reconsider an order or renewal for a previous motion unless the moving
party makes the motion according to section 1008. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e).)
Plaintiff
asks the Court to vacate its May 3, 2024 ruling ordering Plaintiff to post a security
bond in the amount of $75,000.00 to cover Defendant’s reasonable expenses. The order was served via mail on May 3,
2024. A motion to reconsider was due no
later than May 18. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1013, subd. (a) [extending time to respond by 5 calendar days upon service by
mail within California].) Plaintiff
filed this motion on October 21, 2024.
Accordingly,
the Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its May 3, 2024 order and denies
Plaintiff’s motion.
Defendants
request $810.00 in sanctions under Civil Procedure Code section 128. (Declaration of Joseph C. Campo, ¶ 3.)
Outside
of contempt proceedings, courts do not have inherent power to impose monetary
sanctions. (Vidrio v. Hernandez
(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1455.) “Section
128 does not provide for sanctions but rather generally addresses the
powers of courts.” (Webb v. Webb
(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 876, 884 fn. 10.)
Accordingly,
the Court cannot impose sanctions on this ground.
ORDER
The
motion is denied.
Defendants’
request for sanctions is denied.
Plaintiff
to give notice.