Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV30834, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30834    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Intersolutions, LLC          

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Martin Ramirez

Motion to Deem Plaintiff Martin Ramirez a Vexatious Litigant and Dismiss Action or, Alternatively, Require Plaintiff to Post a Bond

The court considered the moving and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

The court considered the first 16 pages[1] of the “Amended Opposition to Defendant Intersolutions, LLC’s CCP § 391 et seq Motion to Designate Plaintiff as a ‘Vexatious Litigant,’” filed by plaintiff Martin Ramirez on March 4, 2024 because, “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113, subd. (d).)  The court did not consider the sur-reply papers filed by plaintiff Martin Ramirez on March 8, 2024 because sur-replies are not authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants defendant Intersolutions, LLC’s request for judicial notice filed on January 19, 2024.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

The court denies defendant Intersolutions, LLC’s request for judicial notice, filed on March 8, 2024, because it includes new evidence in reply.  (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 [“The general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers”].)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Intersolutions, LLC (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order (1) deeming plaintiff Martin Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) to be a vexatious litigant, and (2) dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant with prejudice, or, alternatively, ordering Plaintiff to post security in an amount not less than $50,000.  Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s conduct in Mayendia v. Ramirez (Case No. 21SMCV01968) (the “Mayendia Action”) and in this action establishes that he is a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(3).  (Mot., p. 1:22-24.) 

“‘The trial court exercises its discretion in determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant.’”  (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 828 [citation omitted].)  A vexatious litigant means any person who, “[i]n any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(3); Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 971 [“subdivision (b)(3) requires only that a litigant ‘repeatedly file[] unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conduct[] unnecessary discovery, or engage[] in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay’”] [emphasis in original].)  “The vexatious litigant statutes (§§ 391-391.7) are designed to curb misuse of the court system by those persistent and obsessive litigants who, repeatedly litigating the same issues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of the court system and other litigants.”  (Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1169.)  

The court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to show that the court should exercise its discretion to determine that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(3).)

First, the court finds that Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff, while acting in propria persona, “repeatedly file[d] unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers” in the Mayendia Action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(3).)

The court acknowledges that Defendant (1) has asserted that Plaintiff “filed an endless parade of frivolous motions and other papers seeking ridiculous and unsound relief” and has set forth a list of various motions, ex parte applications, and two opposition briefs that he filed in the Mayendia Action, and (2) has submitted those motions.  (Mot., p. 4:5-22; Def. Compendium of Evidence.)  However, Defendant did not explain how each of those pleadings filed by Plaintiff were unmeritorious within the meaning of section 391.  “Not all failed motions can support a vexatious litigant designation.  The repeated motions must be so devoid of merit and be so frivolous that they can be described as a ‘ “flagrant abuse of the system,” ’ have ‘no reasonable probability of success,’ lack ‘reasonable or probable cause or excuse,’ and are clearly meant to    ‘ “abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants.” ’  [Citation.]”  (Morton, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 972.)  Although Defendant has identified various pleadings that it contends were unmeritorious, Defendant did not set forth analysis or argument explaining why those pleadings were “so devoid of merit” and “so frivolous” “as to come within the meaning of the vexatious litigant legislation.”  (Ibid.) 

Moreover, to the extent that Defendant relies on the Mayendia Action’s court docket, the court finds that the docket, unsupported by analysis or other evidence, is similarly insufficient to show that Plaintiff repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions and pleadings within the meaning of section 391.  (Mot., p. 6:15-20; Holcomb v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1506 [“It is difficult, if not impossible, to make a determination under subdivision (b)(3) simply by resort to the docket sheet of a previous case”].)

Second, Defendant has neither argued nor shown that Plaintiff, while acting in propria personal, “repeatedly . . . conduct[ed] unnecessary discovery” in the Mayendia Action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(3).)

Third, the court finds that Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff, while acting in propria persona, “repeatedly . . . engage[d] in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(3); Morton, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 971.)

The court acknowledges that Defendant contends that Plaintiff, in dismissing Defendant from his Second Amended Cross-Compliant in the Mayendia Action and refiling the pending action against it, was engaging in impermissible judge shopping and other frivolous tactics.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(3); Def. COE Ex. 1 [Pl. Second Amended Cross-Complaint in Mayendia Action].)  However, as set forth above, a vexatious litigant is one who, while acting in propria persona, “repeatedly . . . engage[d] in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(3) [emphasis added].)  Even if the court were to conclude that the conduct described by Defendant in its motion constitutes a frivolous tactic or one solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, such a finding as to one action would not support a vexatious litigant designation.  (Ibid.; Morton, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 971.)  

Thus, the court finds that Defendant has not shown that the court should deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and therefore denies Defendant’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(3).)

Finally, the court is concerned about the tone and content of a number of remarks made by Plaintiff in his amended opposition to Defendant’s motion, which include personal attacks, disparaging remarks, insults, and threats of disbarment against Defendant’s attorneys.  The court finds that such remarks are distracting from the merits of the issues and arguments presented, are not persuasive advocacy, and have no place in written or oral submissions, presentations, or communications made to the court or to other parties or counsel in this litigation.  As the court states in section 1 of its “Courtroom Information for Department 53” posted on the court’s website (and which the court previously pointed out and quoted in its February 5, 2024 minute order):  “The court places a very high value on civility, courtesy, and professionalism in the practice of law and the judicial process.  The court expects all attorneys and parties to treat each other, witnesses, jurors, court personnel, the court, and others with the highest level of civility, courtesy, and professionalism, both inside and outside the courtroom.”  The court expects all parties, attorneys, and other participants in this litigation to govern their conduct accordingly.                   

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Intersolutions LLC’s motion to deem plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

            The court orders plaintiff Martin Ramirez to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 18, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court