Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00424, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00424    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: F

MIR v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00424

HEARING:   9/11/24 @ 9:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jehan Zeb Mir’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Background

On November 13, 2002, Judge Josh M. Fredricks formally declared Jehan Zeb Mir a vexatious litigant in Los Angeles Superior Court, case number TC015566, Mir v. Law Office of Rushfeld, Shelley & Drake, et al.  

On February 24, 2003, Justice Roger W. Boren formally declared Mir a vexatious litigant again in Court of Appeal case B148849 Mir v. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, et al. Justice Boren’s prefiling order stated the following: “[w]e order that henceforth Jehan Zeb Mir may not file any litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona or through an attorney without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court in which the litigation is proposed to be filed.” (Mir v. Pomona Valley Hosp. Medical Center (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2003, No. B148849) 2003 WL 403301, at *23.) Thus, Mir must obtain prefiling permission for new litigation filed in propria persona or through an attorney. (See also Mir v. Mercury Insurance Group (Cal. Ct. App., July 23, 2020, No. B286741) 2020 WL 4218171, at *1.

On June 29, 2021, Mir filed this action, 21NWCV00424, Mir v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, through counsel. On January 25, 2022, Mir filed a substitution of attorney noting he had become a self-represented litigant.

On September 13, 2022, Department 1 dismissed 21NWCV00424 Mir v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al; 21STCV03643 Mir v. McCoy-Thompson; 21STCV27787 Mir v. Goldman, et al; and 20STCV17339 Mir v. Surati Cash & Carry, et al for not obtaining prefiling permission from Department 1 in violation of the expanded prefiling order entered against Mir.

On May 1, 2023, Defendants filed a Motions for Sanctions for Mir’s filing of a frivolous motion for reconsideration.

On June 1, 2023, Department 1 denied Mir’s motions for reconsideration of each of these orders. In the September 13, 2022, and June 1, 2023, orders, the Court rejected Mir’s contentions that the expanded prefiling orders no longer applied. Mir remains subject to the expanded prefiling orders requiring Mir to obtain permission for all new litigation, whether in propria persona or through an attorney. 

On August 3, 2023, the Court denied the motion for sanctions in part and granted it in part.

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the motion for sanctions.

Legal Standard

The moving party must present new facts, circumstances, or law to grant a motion for reconsideration. (See Code Civ. Pro., § 1008, subd. (a); see also Mink v. Super. Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.) The party must state what application was made before, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Pro., § 1008, subd. (a).) Further, the party must satisfactorily explain why he did not produce that evidence before. (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457.)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff states that the different facts are that Defendant did not inform the Court that on June 1, 2023, Judge Court had denied the motion for reconsideration without prejudice, which allowed Plaintiff to refile Application to Vacate Prefiling Order. But Plaintiff does not explain why he did not produce that evidence before. Plaintiff further states the following: “The different facts are that both Judge Cowan and Judge Lui had conceded that Plaintiff submitted the motion for reconsideration timely on September 2, 2022, but was not filed by clerk and yet ordered reassignment to a different judge to reconsider the order denying the application to vacate prefiling order. Judge Court also acknowledged that motion was submitted but not file-stamped by Clerk.” (Mot., pg.3.) Similarly, Plaintiff does not explain why he did not produce this evidence before.

Plaintiff also states the following: “That the Plaintiff prevailed in the motion for (re)consideration of the Judge Court’s January 25, 2023, Order not obeying the Order of Judge Lui, ordering reassignment to a different judge to reconsider the Judge Cowan’s order denying application to vacate prefiling order. That the Court in tentative ruling was based on January 26, 2023, Order of Judge Court which was adopted as final ruling at the conclusion of the hearing on August 3, 2023.”

But Plaintiff’s statements are unclear. (Mot., pg. 2.) “Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument.”  (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1215.)

In addition, Plaintiff states that the different law is that he is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) because the September 2, 2022 order about the motion for reconsideration was not stamped. But Plaintiff does not state how this law relates to the motion for sanctions. Further, Plaintiff does not explain why he did not produce this evidence before.

Plaintiff also states that the different circumstances are that the Court erred and awarded sanction of $3,300 for Defendants making two motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 and 128.7. But Plaintiff does not cite law nor does law exist that supports his point.

Thus, the motion is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.