In re Findings of Parvizian
Filed 6/5/13 In re Findings of Parvizian CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re Finding of
SYRUS PARVIZIAN
As a Vexatious
Litigant.
B247787
Syrus
Parvizian, in pro. per.
Since
2004, Syrus Parvizian has filed 25 proceedings in this court, either appeals or
original writ proceedings. Each case was
resolved adversely to Parvizian.
Although Parvizian enlisted counsel
to represent him in some of the proceedings (at least initially), he filed
many of the proceedings in propria persona.
On
April 8, 2013, we issued an order directing Parvizian to show cause why we
should not find him to be a vexatious litigant within the meaning of Code of
Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1). That section defines a “vexatious litigantâ€
as a person who, “[i]n the immediately preceding seven-year period has
commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five
litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally
determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain
pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.â€
proceedings in this court in which Parvizian represented himself, and which
were resolved adversely to him.
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] These proceedings, briefly summarized, are as
follows:
B197281 and B204329. These
three appeals concern the dissolution of Parvizian’s marriage to Malak
Parvizian. The Parvizians married in
1967, separated in 1997, and litigated for more than 10 years thereafter. In 2008, Parvizian unsuccessfully appealed
from an order denying his fourth motion to vacate a default judgment entered
against him (B194481) and from an order granting Malak Parvizian’s motion for
an order for the sale of property Parvizian owned. (B197281)
In September 2008, Division Five affirmed a superior court order
awarding costs to Malak Parvizian (B204329).
B201877 and B203482. Parvizian was formerly employed by the
State of California, Department
of Transportation (Caltrans). He filed
two superior court complaints, one for damages based on violations of
Government Code section 12940 et seq. and the other for breach of contract and
other claims. The cases were
consolidated. Caltrans propounded
requests for admissions, which were deemed admitted when Parvizian failed to
respond. Parvizian filed a petition for
writ of mandate (B200401) which Division Five of this court denied on July 19, 2007. Two months later, after his superior court case
had already been dismissed, Parvizian filed a second petition (B201877). Division Five denied the petition on September 14, 2007. Division Five affirmed the
Caltrans. This new case was virtually
identical to the cases that had previously been dismissed. The new case was dismissed following a demurrer
and motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Division Five affirmed the judgment of dismissal on October 14, 2010.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. as an air conditioning service technician. Claiming he had been injured while lifting
heavy equipment on the job, Parvizian filed for worker’s compensation
benefits. He filed a petition for writ
of review challenging three separate adverse rulings from the Workers
Compensation Appeals Board. Division
Four of this court denied the petition on January 14, 2011.
against Caltrans, the County of Los Angeles and Malak Parvizian, for breach of
fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, “abuse of discretion,†breach of a written
employment agreement, and several causes of action based on alleged fraud. The factual allegations generally concerned
two subjects: the termination of
Parvizian’s employment with Caltrans (alleged to have taken place in 2003), and
orders made by the family law court permitting the County
of Los Angeles to deduct unpaid
child support payments from Parvizian’s Caltrans paycheck. This lawsuit was dismissed on demurrers. Division Five affirmed the judgment of
dismissal on August 3, 2012.
action against Karuna Dharma. A jury
trial resulted in a defense verdict.
Parvizian filed an appeal in the appellate division of the superior
court. The appellate division dismissed
the appeal. Parvizian filed a petition
to transfer the case to this court, without any showing as to why transfer was
necessary to “secure uniformity of decision or to settle an important question
of law.†(Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.1006(c)(3).) Division Eight denied the
petition to transfer on October 12,
2011.
against the City of Los Angeles
after his car was towed and, he contends, damaged. The City prevailed in the lawsuit. Parvizian filed an appeal and the appellate
division of the superior court affirmed the judgment on February 5, 2013.
After the appellate division denied Parvizian’s motion for
reconsideration, he filed a petition to transfer the matter to this court. Parvizian once again failed to make any showing
as to why transfer was necessary to secure uniformity of decision or to settle
an important question of law. He simply
argued that the appellate division was wrong.
This division denied the petition for transfer on March 18, 2013.
“The purpose of the
vexatious litigant statutes ‘is to address the problem created by the
persistent and obsessive litigant who constantly has pending a number of
groundless actions and whose conduct causes serious financial results to the
unfortunate objects of his or her attacks and places an
burden on the courts.’†(
957-958.) “The constant suer for himself
becomes a serious problem to others than the defendant he dogs. By clogging
court calendars, he causes real detriment to those who have legitimate controversies
to be determined and to the taxpayers who must provide the courts.†(Taliaferro
v. Hoogs (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 73, 74.)
Parvizian qualifies
as a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision
(b)(1), because, in the eight and one-half year period prior to the issuance of
the order to show cause, he “commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria
persona†11 litigations in this court that were finally determined adversely to
him. In his response to the order to
show cause, Parvizian attempts to re-argue the merits of each case, and
suggests that if we issue a pre-filing order we would validate various frauds
committed against him by the other litigants, attorneys, and even judges
involved in these cases. The merits of
these cases were considered at the time the cases were litigated. The only relevant inquiry in this proceeding
is whether Parvizian’s actions meet the statutory requirements of Code of Civil
Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1).
They do.
DISPOSITION
Syrus
Parvizian is declared to be a vexatious litigant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(1).) This opinion shall serve as a prefiling order
prohibiting Parvizian from filing any new litigation in the courts of this
state without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (a).) Disobedience of this order will be punished
as a contempt of court. (
1164, 1170.) This applies to appeals and
writ petitions, as well as new litigation in the trial court. The clerk of this court is directed to
provide a copy of this opinion and order to the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (f).)
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
_______________________, P. J.
BOREN
We concur:
___________________________, J.
ASHMANN-GERST
___________________________, J.
CHAVEZ
trial courts. Each writ petition and
appeal constitutes “litigation.â€
Cal.App.4th 1211, 1216.)
title="">[2] We have taken judicial notice of this
court’s records in all 25 proceedings.
(Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
