Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: BC607465, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

On July 7, 2023, the Court entered judgment in this action. On the Complaint, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants Kevin Moda, Hoffman La Brea LLC, and JKDM LLC (collectively, “Moda Parties”) and against Plaintiffs Mahvash Mazgani (aka Mimi Mazgani), Nazanin Mazgani, and Neyaz Mazgani (collectively, “Mazgani Parties”). On Moda’s Cross-Complaint, the Court entered judgment in favor of Cross-Complainant Kevin Moda and against Cross-Defendant Mahvash Mazgani, and in favor of Cross-Defendants Nazanin Mazgani and Neyaz Mazgani with Kevin Moda taking nothing from them.

On February 22, 2024 and March 19, 2024, the Court issued orders staying enforcement of the judgment until further order of the Court.

On January 27, 2025, Moda filed a memorandum of costs after judgment. On February 3, 2025, the Mazgani Parties filed a motion to tax costs.

On February 24, 2025, Moda filed a motion for reconsideration and sanctions against the Mazgani Parties.

Moda’s post-judgment memorandum of costs reflects a total of $24,667.00 in costs for preparing and issuing an abstract of judgment, the certified judgment and record under Code of Civil Procedure section 674, and attorney fees.

The Mazgani Parties move to strike Moda’s post-judgment attorney fees. (Motion at p. 4.) As stated on the MC-012, attorney fees are a recoverable post-judgment cost “if allowed by Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040.” That section authorizes attorney fees for enforcing a judgment “if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.” In other words, attorney fees are recoverable when authorized by contract. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A).) The judgment awarded Moda attorney fees for prevailing on his cause of action under Penal Code section 496. Because he was not awarded attorney fees pursuant to a contract, Moda is not entitled to additional post-judgment attorney fees.

The Mazgani Parties seek to strike all other costs because the Court stayed enforcement of the judgment. (Motion at pp. 4-5.) On October 17, 2023, the United States Bankruptcy Court ruled that “the automatic stay remains in effect as to enforcement of any judgment in the Superior Court case.” (Newell Decl. ¶ 3.) This Court also issued its own stay orders on February 22, 2024 and March 19, 2024. The abstract of judgment was therefore improperly sought and is not a recoverable cost.

The cited authority for Moda’s “Certified Judgment and record” does not authorize this cost.

Accordingly, the motion to tax costs is GRANTED. Moda shall not recover any costs pursuant to the January 27, 2025 memorandum of costs after judgment.

By presenting a motion to the Court, an attorney is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief that the motion is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b).)

After reviewing Moda’s motions for sanctions, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions Up to $10,000 Under CCP § 128.7 (Attorney Vip Bhola). (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (c)(2).)

The OSC is based on the February 21, 2025 filing of Moda’s motion for reconsideration and sanctions and his reply to the motion, including but not limited to the following issues:

1. Filing the motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 19, 2024 order long after the ten-day deadline for such a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)

2. A lack of legal basis for a motion brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (d), when Plaintiffs have not brought any deficient motion for relief under section 1008.

3. Seeking sanctions of $672,957.58 (plus $1,000.00 each day) against the Mazgani Parties in retaliation for their actions in the bankruptcy case. The improper purpose is apparent from statements such as, “These sanctions are requested to offset the ongoing sanctions imposed by the bankruptcy court, which has failed to respect the state court orders issued by Hon. Berle on November 2, 2023, and Hon. Long on March 14, 2024,” “By filing false and incomplete applications with the Bankruptcy Court—on not one but two occasions—while deliberately omitting material facts, Mr. Newell and the Mazganis have engaged in conduct that is an assault on justice,” and “The amount of sanctions sought is also justified and allowed; and representation is made that if the truth is made known to the Bankruptcy Court and that court withdraws its sanctions order, so will Mr. Moda in its entirety.” (Notice of Motion at p. 5; Reply at pp. 2, 12.)

4. Including irrelevant facts and argument about the bankruptcy proceedings in counsel’s declaration. (Bhola Decl. ¶¶ 3-34.)

5. Repeatedly arguing the merits of the bankruptcy case and automatic stay, where this Court has no jurisdiction. (Motion at pp. 8-14; Reply at pp. 6-8.) The Court has already issued orders explaining that “Moda’s sole avenue for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay is through the Bankruptcy Court.” (See 03/19/2024 Minute Order.)

6. Discrepancies in Attorney Bhola’s declaration that indicate that all matters are not actually “true and correct, and of my own personal knowledge,” such as, “I am asking that to impose like penalties on the Mahvash Mazgani, Nazanin Mazgani, and Mr. Newell not to profit but to escape the harm they have set for me.” (Bhola Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.) The Court presumes that the harm was to Moda, not Attorney Bhola, casting doubt on the true authorship of the declaration.

7. Inflammatory statements about opposing parties and counsel, including (1) accusing opposing parties and counsel of concealing information from the bankruptcy court and “judicial manipulation”; (2) “This court must now act decisively to uphold justice, impose sanctions, and prevent any further abuse of the court process by the Mazganis, ensuring they do not benefit from their persistent fraudulent tactics”; (3) “The actions of Mazganis are reflective of their lack of repentance and pathological behavior”; (4) “The Opposition’s motion represents a blatant affront to intelligence and represents a bold act of audacity”; and (5) accusing Plaintiffs of acting “for their selfish, lawless benefit.” (E.g., Motion at p. 16; Bhola Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 22, 36; Reply at pp. 1, 5.)

The Hearing on Motion for Sanctions against Counsel and Plaintiffs is CONTINUED to May 13, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions Up to $10,000 Under CCP § 128.7 (Attorney Vip Bhola) is scheduled for May 13, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

None of Moda’s counsel’s inflammatory and unwarranted statements about opposing counsel and opposing parties advanced their arguments or were relevant to any issues. Demeaning comments to or about opposing counsel or parties are contrary to counsel’s ethical obligations of civility, professional integrity, candor, and cooperation. (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1536-1537.) This Court’s Local Rules specifically forbid such remarks: “Neither written submissions nor oral presentations should disparage the intelligence, ethics, morals, integrity or personal behavior of one’s adversaries, unless such things are directly and necessarily in issue.” (LASC Local Rules, Appendix 3.A, § (c)(2).)

“‘[I]t is vital to the integrity of our adversary legal process that attorneys strive to maintain the highest standards of ethics, civility, and professionalism in the practice of law.’ [Citation.] Indeed, unwarranted personal attacks on the character or motives of the opposing party, counsel, or witnesses are inappropriate and may constitute misconduct. [Citations.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 412.)

“[W]e cannot allow the tone of the briefing to pass without comment. . . . Appellant targets both respondent and its counsel in the same freewheeling, unprofessional manner. None of these statements were necessary. None of the vitriol advanced the legal arguments in this case. To the contrary, this incivility created an unnecessary distraction to both opposing counsel and this court. [¶] Emotional diatribes do nothing to support the arguments made by counsel. In fact, this verbiage serves the opposite purpose. It requires the court to spend additional resources filtering out the hyperbole, and requires opposing counsel to bill their client for additional time to compose a response. [¶] Ad hominem attacks and other invective detract from counsel’s legal arguments, signal inappropriate personal embroilment in the dispute, and indicate an inability to engage in the reasoned analysis the courts need and counsel’s clients deserve. When counsel resort to name-calling and to unsupported claims of misconduct, they risk obscuring any meritorious arguments they may have. Appellant’s counsel would be well advised to refrain from incivility in the future.” (WasteXperts, Inc. v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 652, 666-667.)

If any party or counsel engages in subsequent incivility, the Court may set an Order to Show Cause Re: Imposition of Sanctions Under CCP §§ 128 or 128.5(a).

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court