Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 18STCV10154, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 18STCV10154, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 18STCV10154 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 1

18STCV10154 YOUNG CHOW DAI vs FELDMAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.C., et al.

1. Application for Order to Vacate Prefilijng [sic] Order and Remove Plaintiff Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List Form VL-120 and First Amended Application for Order to Vacate Prefilijng [sic] Order and Remove Plaintiff Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List Form VL-120

TENTATIVE RULING: The Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List (Form VL-120) and First Amended Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List (Form VL-120) are DENIED. Counsel for Defendant Anthony Ranieri to give notice.

On December 31, 2018, Young Chow Dai filed 18STCV10154 against Feldman & Rothstein P.C., Anthony Ranieri, Mauro Fiore, Jr. APC, Krystal Rosal, and Marsha Mao.

On November 22, 2022, the court entered an order dismissing the action.

On April 8, 2024, Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong formally declared Young Chow Dai a vexatious litigant in Los Angeles Superior Court case 18STCV10154 Dai v. Feldman & Rothstein, P.C. Under this order, Dai became subject to a Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 prefiling requirement that requires Dai to obtain the permission of the presiding judge to file new litigation. Permission is granted only if it appears the litigation has merit and is not being filed for purposes of harassment or delay. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(b).) In the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Presiding Judge has designated the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division (sitting in Dept. 1) to exercise this authority and responsibility. (See Code Civ. Proc. 391.7(e).)

Discussion

In the May 31, 2024 and June 5, 2024 filings, Dai seeks to vacate the prefiling order. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.8(a), an application to vacate a prefiling order shall be made before the judge who entered the order if that judge is available; otherwise, the application shall be made before the presiding judge or his or her designee. The Supervising Judge of the Civil Division, who sits in Department 1, is the designee of the presiding judge under this statute. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.8(a).)

However, Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong remains available in Department 8 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Accordingly, Dai must submit any application to vacate the prefiling order directly to Commissioner Byrdsong for review. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.8(a).) Because Dai’s application to vacate prefiling order is not properly before Department 1, the application is DENIED without prejudice as procedurally improper.

In the June 5, 2024 filing, Dai also provides a letter listing causes of action and reference enclosed exhibits that were not filed. To the extent Dai’s filing seeks to file new civil litigation, the request is procedurally improper. A request to file new litigation should not be filed in an existing case. In the Los Angeles Superior Court, vexatious litigants should submit their requests to file new litigation at the filing window in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The documents will then be forwarded to Department 1 and be addressed in due course.

Moreover, Dai’s request is insufficient to demonstrate any proposed new litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(b).) When requesting leave to file new litigation, the litigant must provide a copy of the proposed pleading to be filed as well as evidence supporting the claims asserted therein. Though Dai’s submission refers to a “formal complaint and supporting exhibit evidence,” (Mot. at 4), Dai’s submission is not accompanied by a proposed complaint or evidence supporting the claims asserted.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant Form VL-110)

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion for Order (Request for File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant Form VL-110) filed June 5, 2024 is DENIED. Counsel for Defendant Anthony Ranieri to give notice.

Background

On December 31, 2018, Young Chow Dai filed 18STCV10154 against Feldman & Rothstein P.C., Anthony Ranieri, Mauro Fiore, Jr. APC, Krystal Rosal, and Marsha Mao.

On November 22, 2022, the court entered an order dismissing the action.

Discussion

In the June 5, 2024 filing, Dai requests to file new litigation against the Defendants. The request is procedurally improper. A request to file new litigation should not be filed in an existing case. In the Los Angeles Superior Court, vexatious litigants should submit their requests to file new litigation at the filing window in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The documents will then be forwarded to Department 1 and be addressed in due course.

Moreover, Dai’s request is insufficient to demonstrate any proposed new litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(b).) When requesting leave to file new litigation, the litigant must provide a copy of the proposed pleading to be filed as well as evidence supporting the claims asserted therein. Dai’s submission is not accompanied by a proposed complaint.

Finally, Department 1 denied Dai’s June 5, 2024 request to file new litigation against Feldman & Rothstein P.C., Anthony Ranieri, Mauro Fiore, Jr. APC, Krystal Rosal, and Marsha Mao on August 7, 2024. “Once the vexatious litigant’s request to file has been denied because the proposed complaint lacks merit or is designed to harass or cause delay, he or she cannot simply try over and over again.” (Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 407, 412.) As stated in the Court’s August 7, 2024 order and argued by Defendants, Dai’s claims appear barred by all applicable statutes of limitations.

Plaintiff’s motion lacks merit and is DENIED.