SEAN RASHTI
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
| SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES |
|
| SEAN RASHTI,
Plaintiff vs. TOBY WANK Defendant
|
Case No.: 19STCV42312
Dept: 31 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $680.73 |
NOW COMES SEAN RASHTI, Plaintiff, Proceeding Pro Se, and files this Opposition to Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $680.73. Plaintiff states as follows:
- Relevant Procedural Background
On or about November 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendant.
On or about January 21, 2020, the Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, denying each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint. On the same date, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Information. In the said Demand, the Defendant requested that both parties send to the other party a list of the expert witnesses, and any document and/or report made by the said expert witnesses.
On or about September 17, 2020, Plaintiff, through Plaintiff’s former Attorney, filed a “Request for Prior Pleadings” to the Defendant.
On or about October 26, 2020, the Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories Set One. In the said Response, Plaintiff duly responded with specificity to each and every of Defendant’s interrogatories.
On February 19, 2021, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a Request for Production of Documents Set Two. Notably, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to produce all documents and other tangible things that support Defendant’s denial or special or affirmative defenses.
On or about March 23, 2021, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff Objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents. In the objection, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s request seeks to obtain privileged information and invade the attorney-client and work product privileges. Defendant also alleged that the Plaintiff’s request was premature and that Defendant’s affirmative defenses were made as a matter of right.
On April 29, 2021, the Plaintiff’s former Attorney sent a Meet and Confer letter to the Defendant. However, Defendant has since failed to meaningfully meet and confer.
Consequently, on March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Set Two.
On or about August 5, 2022, the Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to compel further Discovery responses. Further, the Defendant requested for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $680.73. In their response, the Defendant alleged, inter alia, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion; the motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement; and that Plaintiff filed the motion for sanctions without justification and should therefore be sanctioned.
Plaintiff hereby files this Response.
- ARGUMENTS
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff therefore avers that:
This request for sanctions against Plaintiff is frivolous
An objection is frivolous where it can be said that it indisputably has no merit, such that any reasonable attorney would agree that it is totally and completely without merit. Corbett v. Hayward Dodge, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 915, 922. Whether sanctions are warranted depends on an evaluation of all the circumstances surrounding the questioned action. Weisman v. Bower (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1231, 1236 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 756].
“Frivolous” is defined as “totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(b)(2).) The “bad faith requirement of section 128.5 does not impose a determination of evil motive. The concept of ‘harassment’ includes vexatious tactics which, although literally authorized by statute or rule, go beyond that which is by any standard appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 145-46 (Taeb).
In the instant action, Defendant’s impetuous request now before this court is rife with trivialities and gross misinterpretations of the law. Defendant cites Daniels v. Tergeson (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1207, and alleges that the Plaintiff has not identified against whom Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions sought, and that the motion for sanctions was not supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and a declaration thereof. The Defendant also alleges that there is no basis for imposing monetary sanctions against defendant as the Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and lacks the required separate statement.
Plaintiff avers that the Defendant’s meritless request for sanctions is itself frivolous. First, Defendant grounds their arguments solely on trivialities of procedure and form. The Defendant avoids tackling Plaintiff’s concern on the Defendant’s failure to evaluate any of Defendant’s privilege claims. Notably, the Defendant at all fails to mention the said concern in their response. This shows how the Defendant’s focus is solely bent on pointing Plaintiff’s out trivialities in procedure and form in Plaintiff’s motion.
- CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Defendant’s assertions and mischaracterizations of the law should not be countenanced in this action and his request for sanctions must be denied in its entirety.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court Dismisses the Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $680.73. Plaintiff further prays this Court grant Plaintiff’s requests in Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses. Lastly, Plaintiff prays this Court grant any other Order it deems just.
DATED:
|
Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing document has been sent to the Defendant in the following address:
Dustin J. Lee, State Bar No. 270260
MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
655 North Central Avenue, 12th Floor
Glendale, California 91203-1434
Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / FAX: (855) 396-3606
E-Mail Address: Cali.Law-Glendale@StateFarm.com
Attorneys for defendant Estate of Toby Wank, deceased,
DATED:
|