Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV28899, Date: 2023-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28899    Hearing Date: November 9, 2023    Dept: 39

Shahrouz Jahanshahi v. Corey Evan Parker

Case No. 20STCV28899

Order Dismissing Claims Against Trisha Parker with Prejudice

The Court posts this tentative order on Tuesday, November 7, 2023, in advance of the hearing on Thursday, November 9, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff does not appear, either remotely or in-person, absent good cause, he shall waive the right to be heard on this order and shall submit to the Court’s decision to dismiss the claims against Trisha Parker with prejudice.

Plaintiff Shahrouz Jahanshahi (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented litigant, filed this legal malpractice action against his former attorney, Corey Evan Parker, and a series of Doe defendants.  Following a demurrer, the following causes of action remained at issue: (1) Legal malpractice, (2) Breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) Breach of contract (specifically, the retainer agreement).  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated August 25, 2021.)  The Court granted Defendant Corey Evan Parker’s motion for summary judgment.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated June 15, 2023.)  The Court granted Defendant David Thomas Sulzbacher’s motion to strike and dismissed him with prejudice.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated October 17, 2023.) 

Shortly before the hearing on Defendant Corey Evan Parker’s motion for summary judgment, on May 8, 2023, Plaintiff named Mr. Parker’s wife, Trisha Parker, in place of a Doe defendant.  Defendants moved to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure sections 391(b)(1) and 391(b)(3), and asked the Court to require him to post an undertaking of $10,685 before proceeding with this case against Defendant Trisha Parker.  Notwithstanding the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff maintained these same causes of action against Mr. Parker’s wife, who worked as his case manager.

Following a hearing on Defendants’ motion, the Court granted the motion and declared Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated October 17, 2023.)  The Court ordered Plaintiff to post an undertaking in the amount of $10,685, and to file proof of such on or before November 3, 2023.  (Id., p. 9.)  The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the claims against Trisha Parker should not be dismissed with prejudice based upon any failure to post an undertaking.  (Ibid.)  The Court provided the following notice: “If Plaintiff fails to post the required undertaking, absent good cause, the Court intends to dismiss the claims against Trisha Parker with prejudice.”  (Ibid.) 

Plaintiff did not post an undertaking as ordered by the Court.  Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause why the claims against Trisha Parker should not be dismissed.  Plaintiff articulates no good cause for his failure to post an undertaking.  As discussed, Plaintiff articulated no viable basis to proceed against Trisha Parker on the claims in the operative complaint.  (See id., pp. 5-8.)  Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1.         The Court dismisses the claims against Defendant Trisha Parker with prejudice.

2.         Because there are no remaining defendants, the Court sets no future dates.  Defendants may lodge a proposed judgment if necessary. 

3.         Counsel for Defendant Trisha Parker shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.