Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00801, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00801    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 12-4-23

Case # 22CHCV00801

Trial Date: Not Set

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Jennifer Craig-Ford, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Margarita Carranza, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Designate Plaintiff Margarita Carranza a Vexatious Litigant

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Defendants Martinian & Associates, et al. represented Plaintiff Margrarita Carranza in an action against the County of Los Angeles, et al. for Negligence, Government Tort Liability, and Premises Liabiity (19STCV05567). According to Plaintiff the case settled for $50,000, which led to a (contingency recovery) fee of $25,000. Plaintiff expected a net payment of $25,000, but when presented with the final check, additional “expenses” were also deducted, thereby leading to a net payment of “20K.” The expenses included medical “liens,” which Plaintiff contends were never “authorized.”

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint for Breach of Contract and General Negligence. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a first amended complaint for “Attorney Misconduct.” The first amended complaint contains a conformed copy of a December 8, 2022, filed “Request to Re-Open Complaint,” as well as a Breach of Contract, General Negligence, and Fraud attachments.

On March 15, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer of defendants to the first amended complaint for “Attorney Misconduct” with 30 days leave to amend. On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a second amended complaint for Fraud though the caption identifies additional causes of action. On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed an “addendum” to the second amended complaint again with only the fraud cause of action attachment and additional exhibits, plus new allegations. 

On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed eight (8) requests for dismissals for the following defendants: Robert Yaspan, Brian Kuhn, Fennia Hakobyan, Sevana Vatazarian, Philip Craft, Ronald Whittaker, Jonathan Berger, and D.A. Lucas.

RULING: Continued

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

The court takes judicial notice of the existence of the court filings and court docket for purposes of establishing the existence of the purported conduct, but cannot take judicial notice of the content of any and all items for the truth of the matter asserted.

Defendants Martinian & Associates  and Tigran Martinian move to designate plaintiff Margrarita Carranza, in pro per, a vexatious litigant. Defendants summarize the basis for the request based on continued e-mails to defendants even following a stipulation to limit or stop said emails; “frivolous” motions to reopen a dismissed action (19STCV05567); Addition of Defendants as parties to a separate lawsuit (22STCV17802); the prosecution of two other lawsuits (22STCV06945 & 22STCV13981), whereby Plaintiff seeks to relate the subject cases to the instant action; and, a general statement of “abusive” tactics to “bully” and/or “annoy” Defendants and counsel.

Plaintiff in opposition requests the court “dismiss” the motion. Plaintiff reiterates the basis of “fraud” in the disbursement of the settlement proceeds. Plaintiff also addresses the disposition of two cases apparently as an effort to establish the validity of the complaints.

Defendants in reply first notes the unserved, late filed opposition to the motion. Defendants then reiterate the argument regarding the conflation of cases and systematic efforts to relitigate the subject action.

“Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 391.3, when a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is stayed, and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion shall have been denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant given written notice thereof. When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is made at any time thereafter, the litigation shall be stayed for such period after the denial of the motion or the furnishing of the required security as the court shall determine.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 391.6.)

Due to impacted court calendars as a result of inventory transfer included highly contested actions such as this one, and the court resource intensive nature of the instant motion, the court continues the hearing to March 4, 2024. The court shows a number of reserved items, with only two items actually scheduled: an OSC re Failure to File Proofs of Service and a Case Management Conference for January 9, 2024. No trial date is set, and the disposition of the action may change depending on the outcome of the instant hearing. The court finds no prejudice to the parties in continuing the hearing. The court therefore vacates the two hearings pending the March 4, 2024, hearing on the instant motion.

The case is therefore stayed. Nothing in this order in any bars any action on any and all of the unrelated cases, or provides any form of injunctive relief against social media use, or email communications.

Defendants to give notice.