Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22STCV18171, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18171    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiff Arthur Tsatryan (“Plaintiff,” as self-represented litigant) alleges that he and Defendant Polina Tsatryan (“Ms. Tsatryan”) were married on August 5, 1987.  Plaintiff and Ms. Tsatryan purchased community property in the city of Tarzana in 1999.  Plaintiff alleges that he filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on September 23, 2009 in LASC Case No. BD512645 (“Dissolution Action”).  Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Tsatryan engaged in actions to bankrupt him and that she did not make mortgage payments on the Tarzana property, did not pay legal fees, etc.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Steven Fernandez (“Mr. Fernandez”), Maya Shulman (“Ms. Shulman”), and S. David Kozich (“Mr. Kozich”) were Ms. Tsatryan’s former attorneys in the Dissolution Action.

Plaintiff alleges judgment was entered in the Dissolution Action on May 21, 2015.  He alleges that since September 2015, Ms. Tsatryan has litigated a procedurally improper complaint in the Family Law Court.  He alleges that Ms. Tsatryan, with the aid of Mr. Fernandez, filed legal documents against him on March 11, 2016 and June 9, 2016.  (Compl., ¶¶32, 36.)  He also alleges Ms. Tsatryan and Mr. Fernandez accused Plaintiff and his family members of fraud.  (Id., ¶38.)  On June 7, 2017, Ms. Tsatryan filed a substitution of attorney, substituting Ms. Shulman as her attorney.  (Id., ¶39.)  He alleges that Ms. Tsatryan and Ms. Shulman engaged in fraudulent acts in the Dissolution Action.  (Id., ¶¶40-45.)  Ms. Shulman was relieved as counsel for Ms. Tsatryan on November 3, 2017.  (Id., ¶58.)  On November 28, 2017, Mr. Kozich substituted in as Ms. Tsatryan’s counsel and Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Kozich engaged in unlawful acts.  (Id., ¶¶60-61.) 

The complaint, filed June 3, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, and Mr. Kozich; (2) defamation against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez; (3) malicious prosecution against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez; (4) conspiracy against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez; (5) IIED against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez; and (6) punitive damages against Ms. Tsatryan, Ms. Shulman, Mr. Kozich, and Mr. Fernandez.

On August 30, 2022, the default of Defendant Polina Tsatryan was entered.

B.    Relevant Background

On October 7, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Mr. Kozich’s special motion to strike and Mr. Fernandez’s special motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint.  The Court heard oral arguments and continued the hearing to October 21, 2022.

On October 14, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Ms. Shulman’s special motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint.  The Court heard oral arguments and continued the hearing to October 21, 2022. 

On October 21, 2022, the 3 special motions to strike came for hearing. The Court took the matters under submission and allowed Plaintiff to file additional papers.

On November 4, 2022, the Court ruled on the submitted matters.  The Court granted Mr. Kozich’s special motion to strike, Mr. Fernandez’s special motion to strike, and Ms. Shulman’s special motion to strike. 

C.    Motion on Calendar

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 7, 2022 ruling regarding Mr. Kozich.

On November 29, 2022, Defendant S. David Kozich filed an opposition brief.

On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request to strike Mr. Kozich’s opposition and filed a notice of non-opposition stating that the opposition was untimely filed.  The Court denies the request to strike Mr. Kozich’s opposition.  Pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.1300(d), the court may in its discretion refuse to consider a late filed paper.  The Court declines to strike the opposition brief.  In addition, even if the opposition brief had not been filed and considered by the Court, the Court would have still reached the same ultimate result in its ruling on this motion.  In any event, any prejudice was cured by providing Plaintiff the opportunity to file an additional brief on the prior special motion to strike.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 1008(a) states:

(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(CCP § 1008(a).) 

DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s October 7, 2022 order, wherein he argues that the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to dismiss Mr. Kozich’s anti-SLAPP motion.  Plaintiff moves pursuant to CCP § 1008(a).

         As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not file any motion to “dismiss” a motion made by Mr. Kozich.  Further, a review of the October 7, 2022 minute order shows that the Court did not grant or deny any request for a dismissal.  As such, there is nothing for this Court to reconsider pursuant to Plaintiff’s instant motion.

         Second, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s (oral) request for a dismissal of Mr. Kozich’s motion, the Court would still find grounds to deny the motion.  Plaintiff argues that the Court failed to record Mr. Kozich and his counsel’s absence at the October 7, 2022 hearing and that the Court failed to grant Plaintiff’s request for dismissal based on Mr. Kozich’s failure to appear.  The Court’s minute order recorded the presence of each of the parties/their counsel that attended the hearing, such that this is not a basis for reconsideration.  Even if Mr. Kozich or his counsel did not attend the October 7, 2022 hearing, at most they merely declined to present oral argument on October 7, 2022.  Rather, the Court heard Plaintiff’s oral arguments regarding Mr. Kozich’s special motion to strike and allowed Plaintiff to file additional written oral arguments for the Court’s review.  In addition, Plaintiff has not stated any legal basis upon which a “dismissal” of a motion is proper for a moving party’s failure to attend the hearing.  Plaintiff has not shown that there are any new or different facts, circumstances, and/or law that would warrant any reconsideration of the Court’s October 7, 2022 order.

         The motion for reconsideration is denied.

         In the opposition brief, Mr. Kozich requests $900 in fees and costs pursuant to CCP § 1008(d) and CCP § 128.7 for opposing this motion.  He also requests that the Court adopt its October 7, 2022 tentative ruling on his special motion to strike and to award fees in the amount of $495. First, the Court notes Mr. Kozich’s request to adopt the tentative ruling is moot as the Court ruled on the three special motions to strike, which were taken under submission, on November 4, 2022.  With respect to Mr. Kozich’s request for sanctions in the amount of $900 for opposing this motion, the Court denies the request at this time.  However, if Mr. Kozich has complied with the notice requirements of section 128.7, the Court would be inclined to consider imposing sanctions on motion pursuant to that section.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 7, 2022 order is denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.