Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 18STCV10154, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling
*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.
Case Number: 18STCV10154 Hearing Date: February 6, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2024
Case Name: YOUNG
CHOW DAI v. FELDMAN & ROTHSTIEN, PC, et. al.
Case No.: 18STCV10154
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Young Chow Dai
Responding Party: Defendant
Feldman & Rothstein, PC
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss Action is DENIED.
THE COURT SETS
AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY PLAINTIFF YOUNG CHOW DAI SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED
VEXATIOUS PER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 391, SUBDIVISION
(B)(3) FOR MARCH 20, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.
ANY RESPONSE TO THE OSC IS TO BE
SERVED AND ELECTRONICALLY FILED AT LEAST
16-COURT DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING DATE OF MARCH 20, 2024.
SERVICE:
[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC,
rule 3.1300) OK
[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,
1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 23,
2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of January 29, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff
Young Chow Dai (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against
Defendants Feldman & Rothstein, P.C. (“Feldman”), Mauro Fiore, Jr.
(“Fiore”), Krystal L. Rosal (“Rosal”), Anthony N. Ranieri, Esq.[1] (“Ranieri”),
and Marsha S. Mao (“Mao”) for breach of contract. Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the same day.
Defendant Mao filed Demurrers on
March 15 and July 10, 2019. On April 29, 2019, Defendants Rosal and Fiore, each
filed a separate General Denial. Defendant Ranieri filed an Answer on May 24,
2019.
On July 23, 2019, Defendant Mao
filed a Notice of Related Case, Young Chow Dai v. Paul P. Cheng &
Associates, et al., Case No. 18STCV10177.
On September 24, 2019, the instant
case was reclassified as a limited civil jurisdiction case. (9- 24-19 Notice of
Reclassification.) The case was assigned to Department 94 and all matters on
the calendar were vacated. (9-24-19 Notice of Reassignment.)
On December 26, 2019, Plaintiff
filed a Motion to Reclassify Case as Civil Unlimited. On July 2, 2020, the
Court found that the motion, in effect, was a motion for reconsideration and
denied it due to deficiencies. (7-2-20 Minute Order.)
Plaintiff filed another Motion to
Reclassify on July 8, 2020, as well as a Motion for Reconsideration on July 10,
2020, with supplemental papers filed on January 21 and 22, 2021. On February
22, 2021, the Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration due to several issues
with the Motion. (2-22-21 Minute Order.) On August 9, 2021, the Court also
denied the Motion to Reclassify as moot, filed on July 8, 2020, as it was
nearly identical to the Motion for Reconsideration, denied on February 22,
2021, and contained the same deficiencies. (8-9-21 Minute Order.)
On May 4, 2022, the Appellate
Division of the Superior Court dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal of the Court’s
February 22, 2021, Order denying her Motion for Reconsideration. (5-4-22 Minute
Order – Case No. BV033464; 7-7-22 Appeal – Remittitur.)
On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed another
Motion for Summary Judgment and a Second Motion for Summary Judgment and New
Discovery of Defendants’ Non-excusable Neglect. On September 19, 2022, the
Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, noting that it contained
numerous procedural and substantive deficiencies. (9-19-22 Minute Order.)
On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed
a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.
On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a motion titled “Amended Motion for Order Show Cause why should not
Dismiss Pursuant to CCP 128.7 & CCP 575.2 and Government Code 68608.” A
related, Second Amended Motion, was filed on October 31, 2022.
On November 22, 2022, the Court
made the following order:
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. Defendants to submit a
proposed order to the Court. Counsel for defendant is to give notice.
(11-22-22 Minute Order.) The Court signed the Order
dismissing the action with prejudice on November 28, 2022. (11-28-22 Order.)
On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a Motion for New Trial. An Amended Motion for New Trial was filed on
December 29, 2022.
On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed
a Motion to Transfer to Santa Monica Courthouse Emergency Medical Concern
Motion to Request Court Transfer and Notice of Motion to Change.
On July 10, 2023, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s motion for new trial.
On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed
a motion to vacate judgment.
On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed
a motion to set aside void judgment or order.
On November 1, 2023, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment. (11-1-23 Minute Order.)
On November 30, 2023, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside void judgment. (11-30-23 Minute Order.)
On December 08, 2023, Plaintiff
filed the instant Motion to dismiss action. Defendants respond in opposition.
On December 08, 2023, Plaintiff
moved for default to be entered against Defendants. The Clerk rejected the
request noting that the case was dismissed on November 22, 2022. (12-08-23
Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk’s Judgment.)
Defendant Ranieri writes in
opposition. No reply has been filed.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff prays for an order from
the Court dismissing the case under § 212.297.
OPPOSITION
In
opposition, Defendant Ranieri points out that the case was dismissed with
prejudice as sanctions for Plaintiff’s litigation misconduct under CCP §128.7. Defendant
Ranieri additionally requests the Court set an Order to Show Cause on why
Plaintiff should not be declared a vexatious litigant.
REPLY
No reply
has been filed.
ANALYSIS
I. Discussion
As a preliminary matter, the Court
notes that Plaintiff’s moving papers are incomprehensible and do not provide
the Court with a sufficient legal basis or relevant authority to provide
Plaintiff with the relief to dismiss the action. Further, the Court notes that
the action was previously dismissed with prejudice by the Court on November 28,
2022.
For these
reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Finally, the Court makes note of
Plaintiff’s repeated frivolous post-judgment motions:
(1) Plaintiff moved
for a new trial on December 01, 2022, the Court denied the motion on July 10,
noting that the action was dismissed with prejudice.
(2) Plaintiff moved
to transfer the case to Santa Monica on April 12, 2023, the Court denied the
motion on the same basis.
(3) Plaintiff moved
to vacate judgment on August 14, 2023, the Court denied the motion on November
01, 2023, noting that the motion was improperly made and not sufficiently
stated.
(4) Plaintiff moved
to set aside void judgment on August 24, 2023, the Court denied the motion on
November 30, 2023, noting that Plaintiff failed to provide any grounds for
relief.
(5) Plaintiff moved
for default to be entered against Defendants on December 08, 2023, the Clerk
rejected the request citing that the case was dismissed on November 28, 2022.
(6) Plaintiff files
this instant motion without citing any legal authority.
These repeated, frivolous filings made
without relevant authority have clogged the Court’s calendar with Plaintiff’s
motions that continuously challenge the validity of the Court’s determination
against defendants and have failed to provide sufficient legal authority or
grounds. The Court finds these repeated, frivolous motions may be deemed
vexatious pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision
(b)(2)-(3).
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff Young Chow
Dai’s Motion to Dismiss Action is DENIED.
THE COURT SETS AN ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE: WHY PLAINTIFF YOUNG CHOW DAI SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
PER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 391, SUBDIVISION (B)(3) FOR MARCH 20, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.
ANY RESPONSE TO THE OSC IS TO BE
SERVED AND ELECTRONICALLY FILED AT LEAST
16-COURT DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING DATE OF MARCH 20, 2024.
Judicial Assistant is ordered to give notice.