Preview
20CV373028
Santa Clara — Civil
Electronically Filed
CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP by Superior Court of CA,
Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528)
55 North 3 Street County of Santa Clara,
Campbell, CA 95008 on 3/9/2021 4:41 PM
Office: 650-948-7200 Reviewed By: F. Miller
Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Case #20CV373028
Envelope: 5998145
Attorneys for Defendant
Rick Mirza
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
10
11
12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., CaSE No.: 20CV373028
13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
14 Vv. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
1
RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
16 Husband and Wife, DEFENDANTS’ (1) MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S EX
17 Defendants PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO/OSC
AND (2) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS
18 TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT
19
20
[ccp§ 128.7]
21
DATE: MARCH 16, 2021
22 TIME: 9:00 AM
DEPT
23
24 ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020
BS
25
ae
az
ao 26 //
8
27 /
28 i
Marquez v. Mirza REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO.
CASE NO, 20CV373028 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MPA ISO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
PAGE |
Defendant Rick Mirza requests that this Court take notice, pursuant to California Evidence Code
sections 452(d) and 453, of the following documents in support of Defendant’s Reply in support of
Motions For Sanctions against Plaintiff:
1 Defendants’ Motion For Sanctions As To Plaintiff's Summons and Complaint filed on
December 17, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Motion described herein is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
Defendants’ Motion For Sanctions As To Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for TRO/OSC
filed on December 17, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Motion described herein is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
10 Order Denying Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order by Judge Thang N.
11 Barrett dated November 25, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Order as described herein.
12 is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
13 Request for Dismissal dated March 9, 2021. A true and correct copy of the Request for
14 Dismissal as described herein is attached as Exhibit 4.
15
16 WHEREFORE, Defendant moves the Court take judicial notice of the above-described
17 documents and consider the same in considering Defendants’ motion for sanctions.
18
19 Respectfully submitted,
20 CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP
21
2
Dated: March 9, 2021 By /s/ Daniel L. Casas
23 Daniel L. Casas
Attorney for Defendant
24 Rick Mirza
BS ee
se
3 ee 25
Bz BB
ae BS
az
ao ga
Be 26
8 a6
aS
27
28
Marquez v. Mirza REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO.
CASE NO, 20CV373028 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MPA ISO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
PAGE 2
Exhibit |
CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP
Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528)
55 North 3 Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Office: 650-948-7200
Facsimile: 650-948-7220
Attorneys for Defendants
Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
10
il
12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., Case No.: 20CV373028
13 Plaintiff,
DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. CASAS
14 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
Vv,
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO
1
RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND
16 Husband and Wife, COMPLAINT
17 Defendants [ccp § 128.7]
18 DATE:
19 TIME:
DEPT:
20
ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020
21
22
23 /
24
BS
BS 53
dz 25
as i
ez
aS 26
5 a Bs Hf
27
28
Marquez v. Mirza DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. CASAS ISO DEFENDANTS’
CASE NO. 20CV373028 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
1 I, Daniel L. Casas, declare:
1 As a licensed California attorney and partner of Casas Riley Simonian LLP, I represent
defendants and tenants RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA in this action. I have
personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except for those facts stated on information
and belief, which I believe to be true. I make the following declaration as required by
Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7.
This is a second lawsuit by Plaintiff Landlord who is attempting to evict Defendants from
their Santana Row penthouse.
On November 25, 2020, my office served Plaintiff's counsel with a copy of this Notice of
10 Motion for Sanctions and supporting documents. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and
11 correct copy of the Proof of Service dated November 25, 2020.
12
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
14 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on November 25, 2020 in
15 Campbell, California.
16 LO
Darfiel . Casas
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ba
Ba s3
dz
25
ae
az
ao
Ze
26
52
Se BS
27
2
Marquez v. Mirza DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. CASAS ISO DEFENDANTS’
CASE NO. 20CV373028 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
1 CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP
Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528)
55 North 3 Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Office: 650-948-7200
Facsimile: 650-948-7220
Attorneys for Defendants
Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
10
11
12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., Case No.: 20CV373028
13 Plaintiff,
PROOF OF SERVICE
14
Vv.
15
RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA,
16 Husband and Wife,
17 Defendants
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 55 North 3% Street,
Campbell, California 95008.
On November 25, 2020, I served document(s) identified as:
DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. CASAS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT
NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
10 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS
TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
11 DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
12
on the following interested parties in said action:
13
Maria S. Bellafronto
14 HOPKINS & CARLEY
70 S. First Street
15
San Jose, CA 95113
16
17
18
by using the following form of service:
19
X__ (VIA MAIL) I placed a true copy of the above-referenced documents in a sealed envelope
20 with postage thereon fully prepaid; I caused the envelope to be deposited in the mail at Campbell,
California in accordance with the standard practice of Casas Riley Simonian LLP for collection
21 and processing of correspondence for mailing. I am familiar with the firm’s practice for collection
22 and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, mail is deposited, with postage
thereon fully prepaid, with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of
23 business.
24 (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) I caused a true copy of the above-referenced documents to be
transmitted by electronic mail transmission to the person(s) listed above at the e-mail address last
25
given by that person.
26
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
27 November 25, 2020, at Campbell, California.
Warcele
28 Marcele Graviano
PROOF OF SERVICE
Electronically Filed
CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP by Superior Court of CA,
Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528)
55 North 3 Street County of Santa Clara,
Campbell, CA 95008 on 12/17/2020 3:02 PM
Office: 650-948-7200 Reviewed By: R. Tien
Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Case #20CV373028
Envelope: 5494281
Attorneys for Defendants
Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
10
11
12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., CaSE No.: 20CV373028
13 Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 Vv. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
1
RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S
16 Husband and Wife, SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
17 Defendants [cce§ 128.7]
18 DATE:
TIME:
19
DEPT:
20
ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020
21
22
23
24 MH
Ba
Ga
gz 25 //
ae
az
aS 26
Sz /
27 MH
28 Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page |
I INTRODUCTION
Defendants Rick and Marina Mirza (Tenants) move the Court to issue an Order for monetary
lsanctions against Plaintiff GABRIEL MARQUEZ, JR. (Landlord) and his attorneys of record for
filing a meritless unlimited civil action while his unlawful detainer case is pending, pursuant to
(California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §128.7.
The same day that Plaintiff's demand for a trial date was denied in his unlawful detainer
laction (Case No. 20CV368975), Landlord notified Tenants of an attempted self-help repossession of
\Tenants’ Santana Row penthouse apartment which was unsuccessful. The attempt having been
10 thwarted Plaintiff filed a new unlimited civil action seeking, in part, the same relief he was previoush
11
denied. Plaintiff obviously seeks a different ruling from a different courtroom in the same courthouse,
12
Plaintiff's new complaint, and specifically his claim for injunctive relief was filed in bad
13
faith, deserving of a dismissal and sanctions against Landlord and his attorneys.
14
15
IL. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
16 A. The Court is Authorized to Impose Sanctions
17
CCP §128.7(c) provides that the trial court may impose an appropriate sanction on attorneys.
18
law firms, or parties who have violated CCP § 128.7(b), which provides:
19
(b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or
20 later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other
similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the
21 best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an
22
inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions
are met:
23
(1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such
24 as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the
Ba cost of litigation.
Ga
gz 25
ae (2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are
az
aS 26 warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,
Sz
a"
modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
27
28 \Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 2
(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support
or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after
a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or
belief.
CCP § 128.7(b) (emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiff has violated multiple proscriptions of §128.7(b), specifically subsection (b)(1
land (2), as he seeks to remove Defendants Rick and Marina Mirza, from their Santana Ro
ipenthouse apartment in violation of the Unlawful Detainer Act and in contravention of a prior ruling
lby the Court in his unlawful detainer action.
10
To place this motion in context, the following timeline summarizes Plaintiff's course of
11
conduct in his attempted wrongful eviction of Tenants since July 2020:
12
e July 8, 2020 — Property management company and Landlord’s agent notified off
13
laundry room waste line blockage that resulted in flooding on the first and second
14
floors of the three-story penthouse.
15
July 17, 2020 (Friday) — Plaintiff's company dgSs & in-house counsel” notifies Tenants off
16
a unilateral lease termination, ordering Tenants to vacate the premises by July 20.
17
2020 (Monday).
18
August 7, 2020 — Plaintiff files his unlawful detainer action (Case No. 20CV368975)
19
on an ex parte application without notice to Defendants or their known counsel
20
RJN, Exhs. 1,2.
21
August 21, 2020 — Plaintiff files his second ex parte application for Injunctive
22
Relief/Temporary Restraining Order to circumvent the Unlawful Detainer Act whic!
23
this Court denied. RJN, Exh. 3.
24
Ba September 8, 2020 — Plaintiffs counsel notices an inspection, threatens to change the)
Ga
gz 25
ae locks on the penthouse apartment, and refuses to leave the premises during the
az
aS 26
Sz
a" inspection, until security and San Jose Police arrive and direct him and his
27
companions to leave the leased premises.
28 Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 3
e October 28, 2020 — Plaintiff's request for a November 30 trial date in the unlawful
detainer action is denied. Plaintiffs counsel then sends an email notifying Defendants’
counsel of a plan to enter the leased premises (without permission or stipulation) and
begin demolition work at the apartment on October 30, 2020, ignoring Defendants’
counsel’s request to meet and confer on November 1, after he returns from vacation]
Casas Decl.
October 30, 2020 — Landlord’s attorney and a dozen construction workers descend 0:
the leased premises and threaten to change the locks, enter the premises, and begii
demolition work. Tenants’ security guard, a former San Jose police officer, objects to
10 Landlord’s agents entering the premises, and San Jose PD instructs the intruders to
11 leave the leased premises.
12 November 3, 2020 — Plaintiff files a new, unlimited civil action after his attempted
13 self-help repossession on October 30 is thwarted. The new action contains the same
14 allegations and relief sought in the unlawful detainer action—to remove Tenants from]
15 the apartment.
16 Bringing a new action for the same relief based on the same facts and law warrants sanctions for
17 the duplicative nature of the requests. Taylor v. Varga (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 750,
18
disapproved on other grounds by K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2020) 8 Cal. Sth 875, 879. In
19
Taylor, Defendants were subject to sanctions in connection with their appeal of default judgment,
20
based on the duplicative nature of their request, where they brought two separate motions for relief
21
22
based on the same facts and law.
23 The duplicative nature of the request was sufficient to justify the sanctions
imposed. Neither the court, litigants, nor opposing counsel should be
24 subject to such sequential efforts to challenge rulings. This type of
Ba
Ga duplicative proceeding is not to be encouraged. Sanctions were properly
gz 25
ae imposed. Taylor v. Varga, supra, at 762.
az
aS 26
Sz
27
28 Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 4
Clearly unwilling to abide by the Unlawful Detainer Act (CCP sections 1159, et seq.) and its
Istrict procedural requirements, Plaintiff Landlord continues to utilize any means necessary to
lexpedite an eviction of Rick and Marina Mirza. Plaintiff claims no specific monetary damages in his
civil complaint and his requested injunctive relief is identical to the relief requested and denied in
ithe unlawful detainer action, as well as in his most recent ex parte application filed in this action.
Plaintiff's available relief relating to possession of the penthouse lies solely with the unlawful
\detainer action. He cannot circumvent that process and effect an eviction of Defendants under the
lguise of repairing the premises simply because there is a delay in setting trial dates in eviction cases.
10 Plaintiff cannot be allowed to “department shop” in the same courthouse because he is dissatisfied
11
ith the pace of his eviction case. Plaintiff's incessant litigation, harassment, and constructive
12
leviction are clearly meant to bully the Mirzas into relinquishing their leasehold estate.
13
Plaintiff's claims in his new civil action that he merely wants to repair the premises and did
14
Inot want to bring a legal action against his tenants are in direct contradiction to his termination of the
15
lease weeks into a two-year fixed term and his refusing to dismiss the unlawful detainer action.
16
17 B. Monetary Sanctions are Warranted Against Plaintiff and His Attorneys
18
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court
19 determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to
the conditions stated below [21-day period to cure], impose an appropriate
20 sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated
subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In determining what
21
sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a
22 party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence. CCP § 128.7(c).
23 Defendants have repeatedly offered to coordinate repairs to the premises following dismissal
24 lof the wrongfully-filed unlawful detainer action, and Plaintiff has repeatedly refused. Instead, he and|
Ba
Ga
gz 25 lhis attorneys have chosen the path of wasteful and frivolous litigation, even to go so far as attempted
ae
az
aS 26
Sz lillegal self-help eviction.
a"
27
28 \Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 5
In light of Landlord’s most recent escalation in filing his meritless civil action and hig
continued pursuit of Tenants through unnecessary and harassing litigation and self-help tactics.
\Defendants served Plaintiff with this motion for sanctions in accordance with the requirements of
ICCP § 128.7(c)(1). See Casas Dec. ISO Motion for Sanctions.
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is already pursuing his sole eviction remedy in his unlawful detainer action (Case
INo. 20CV368975). His attempts to circumvent the Unlawful Detainer Act and to influence the
[Tenants to vacate the leased premises and give up their two-year lease must be stopped. Defendants
10
[Rick and Marina Mirza request an order granting their sanctions motion and awarding costs of suit.
11
including filing fees and attorney’s fees, incurred in their defense and filing this motion in the sum of
12
$5,000.
13
14 Submitted,
15 CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP
16
Dated: November 25, 2020 By /s/ Daniel L. Casas
17
Daniel L. Casas
18 Attorneys for Defendants
Rick and Marina Mirza
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ba
Ga
gz 25
ae
az
aS 26
Sz
a"
27
28 Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 6
Electronically Filed
i CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP by Superior Court of CA,
Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528)
55 North 3“ Street County of Santa Clara,
Campbell, CA 95008 on 12/17/2020 3:02 PM
Office: 650-948-7200 Reviewed By: R. Tien
Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Case #20CV373028
Envelope: 5494281
Attorneys for Defendants
Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
10
11
12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., Case No.: 20CV373028
13 Plaintiff,
NOTICE OF HEARING ON
14 Vv. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S
1
RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
16 Husband and Wife,
[ccr § 128.7]
17 Defendants
DATE:
18 TIME:
DEPT: ——__
19
20 ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020
21
22
23 TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
as B38
a
sz 24 Please take notice that on ; 2020 at am/pm, or as soon
me
az
sz 3a
Ze 25 thereafter as this matter may be heard, in Department of the above-entitled Court, located at
~E aS
26 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113, Defendants RICK MIRZA and MARINA
27 larquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 1
28
MIRZA will and hereby does move for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff GUSTAVO
MARQUEZ, JR. and his attorneys of record in the amount of $5,000.
The Motion for Sanctions is based upon the Complaint, this Notice, the accompanying
Motion, supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, and all
pleadings, papers, authorities, and records in this action, and any evidence and argument properly
presented at the hearing.
Submitted,
CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP
10
Dated: November 25, 2020 By /s/ Daniel L. Casas
11
Daniel L. Casas
12 Attorneys for Defendants
Rick and Marina Mirza
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
se ag
a
sz Be 24
meas
az zg
4o $33a 25
&2 aS
26
27 larquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 2
28
Electronically Filed
i CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP by Superior Court of CA,
Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528)
2 55 North 3 Street County of Santa Clara,
Campbell, CA 95008 on 12/17/2020 3:02 PM
3 Office: 650-948-7200 Reviewed By: R. Tien
Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Case #20CV373028
4 Envelope: 5494281
Attorneys for Defendants
5 Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
9
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
10
11
12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., CaSE No.: 20CV373028
13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
14 Vv. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND
1
RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, COMPLAINT
16 Husband and Wife,
17 Defendants
18 DATE:
TIME:
19
DEPT:
20
ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020
21
22
Defendants Rick and Marina Mirza request that this Court take notice, pursuant to California
2
Evidence Code sections 452(d) and 453, of the following documents in support of Defendants’
24
Motion For Sanctions against Plaintiff:
2.
ae
Sz 1 The Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed in the above captioned matter with this
ao 26
SZ
Se
Court, by Plaintiff Gustavo Marquez, Jr. on August 6, 2020. A true and correct copy of the
27
Complaint described herein is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
28
Marquez v. Mirza REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE.
CASE NO. 20CV373028 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
PAGE |
i 2. Order Granting Application for Ex Parte Order dated August 6, 2020. A true and correct
copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
3 3 Order Re: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Injunctive Relief/Temporary Restraining
Order by Commissioner Johnson dated September 23, 2020. A true and correct copy of the
5 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
6
7 WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court take judicial notice of the above-described
8 documents and consider the same in considering Defendants’ motion for sanctions
9
10 Respectfully submitted,
11 CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP.
12
Dated: November 25, 2020 By /s/ Daniel L. Casas
14 Daniel L. Casas
Attorney for Defendants
15 Rick and Marina Mirza
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5 ee
3 82el
Se 25
aa
aa ps
ao 26
ba
LBS
27
28
Marquez v. Mirza REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE.
CASE NO. 20CV373028 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
PAGE 2
E-FILED
8/6/2020 9:45 AM
Maria S. Bellafronto (State Bar No. 161994) Clerk of Court
mbellafr@hopkinscarley.com Superior Court of CA,
Andrew J. Ditlevsen (State Bar No. 284911)
ajd@hopkinscarley.com County of Santa Clara
HOPKINS & CARLEY 20CV368975
A Law Corporation Reviewed By: M Vu
The Letitia Building
70 S. First Street
San Jose, CA 95113-2406
mailing address:
P.O. Box 1469
San Jose, CA 95109-1469
Telephone: (408) 286-9800
Facsimile: (408) 998-4790
Attorneys for Plaintiff
GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR.
10
1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
13
14 LIMITED JURISDICTION
15 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., an individual, LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION AMOUNT
IN CONTROVERSY DOES NOT EXCEED
16 Plaintiff, $10,000
20CV368975
17 Vv. CASE NO.
18 RICK MIRZA, MARINA MIRZA, and VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive DETAINER
19
Defendants, FILED UNDER EMERGENCY RULE 1 OF
20 THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
21 [Public Health and Safety Exception]
22
23
Plaintiff Gustavo Marquez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
24
1 Plaintiff files this Unlawful Detainer Complaint pursuant to Emergency Rule 1 of
25
the California Rules of Court in order to protect public health and safety. Plaintiff seeks an
26
expedited trial date under CRC Emergency Rule 1 (d) for this reason. As detailed below, the
27
residential premises at issue consists of real property commonly known as 356 Santana Row, Unit
28
Hopkins & CARIRY
No.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN Jose.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER
d by the
306, San Jose, California 95128, which is a two-story condominium unit occupie
units owned by third
Defendants, and which shares walls with and is located directly above other
to a raw sewage leak, the
parties (the “Premises”). The Premises has become uninhabitable due
drywall
remediation of which requires removal and replacement of various flooring types and
tion
throughout the Premises. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the scope of remedia
and five months.
proposed by Plaintiff's professional remediation company will be between three
g Mrs. Mirza
The “level three” dark water poses an abated health hazard to Defendants, includin
facts, Defendants,
who is pregnant, as, well as other tenants in the adjoining units. Despite these
primarily Mr. Mirza, refuse to relocate from the Premises so that remediation work can
10 commence, imposing further exigency on this filing.
18
1 2, Plaintiffis, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual over the age of
12 years, and a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
ts
13 3. Plaintiff is the owner of the Premises, possession of which is sought from Defendan
14 in this action.
15 4 Defendants Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza are in possession of the Premises pursuant
is attached
16 to a written lease, dated June 2, 2020 (the “Lease”), a true and correct copy of which
17 hereto as Exhibit A.
in the
18 5 Defendants are, and at all times herein mentioned were, individuals residing
d interest
19 Premises located in Santa Clara County. As stated in the Lease, Defendants’ leasehol
$8,500.00 per month,
20 commenced on June 15, 2020 for a two year term. Defendants agreed to pay
is not based
21 payable on the first of each month pursuant to the Lease, however, this unlawful detainer
e
22 on nonpayment of rent. Mr. Mirza is a self-described private equity financier and executiv
both
23 functioning across a range of industries including hospitality, real estate and alternative energy,
be financially very
24 domestically and internationally. By all outward appearances, he appears to
25 successful and is not in default on his rent.
26 6 Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 10,
the same have
27 inclusive, and will seek leave of court to allege said true names and capacities when
including the Defendants
28 been ascertained. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants,
Hopkins& CARLEY -2-
‘Arrorneys AT LAW 906\3582275.3
Saw Jost
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER
served as DOE herein, was the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants and in
doing the things herein mentioned was acting within the scope of such agency and/or employment.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants, including the
defendants served as DOE herein, claim some type of possessory interest in and to the Premises.
Plaintiff shall hereinafter refer to the Mirza Defendants, and DOES 1 through 10, collectively as
“Defendants.”
7
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on or about July 8,
2020, Defendants caused the plumbing within the Premises to become clogged by their improper and
negligent disposal of used baby wipes, which caused a leak(s) within the Premises. Subsequently,
10 after causing the plumbing blockage, Defendants permitted a handy man to rem
Preview
20CV373028 Santa Clara — Civil Electronically Filed CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP by Superior Court of CA, Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528) 55 North 3 Street County of Santa Clara, Campbell, CA 95008 on 3/9/2021 4:41 PM Office: 650-948-7200 Reviewed By: F. Miller Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Case #20CV373028 Envelope: 5998145 Attorneys for Defendant Rick Mirza SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 10 11 12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., CaSE No.: 20CV373028 13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF 14 Vv. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 1 RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 16 Husband and Wife, DEFENDANTS’ (1) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S EX 17 Defendants PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO/OSC AND (2) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS 18 TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 19 20 [ccp§ 128.7] 21 DATE: MARCH 16, 2021 22 TIME: 9:00 AM DEPT 23 24 ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020 BS 25 ae az ao 26 // 8 27 / 28 i Marquez v. Mirza REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO. CASE NO, 20CV373028 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MPA ISO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PAGE | Defendant Rick Mirza requests that this Court take notice, pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452(d) and 453, of the following documents in support of Defendant’s Reply in support of Motions For Sanctions against Plaintiff: 1 Defendants’ Motion For Sanctions As To Plaintiff's Summons and Complaint filed on December 17, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Motion described herein is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Defendants’ Motion For Sanctions As To Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for TRO/OSC filed on December 17, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Motion described herein is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 10 Order Denying Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order by Judge Thang N. 11 Barrett dated November 25, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Order as described herein. 12 is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 13 Request for Dismissal dated March 9, 2021. A true and correct copy of the Request for 14 Dismissal as described herein is attached as Exhibit 4. 15 16 WHEREFORE, Defendant moves the Court take judicial notice of the above-described 17 documents and consider the same in considering Defendants’ motion for sanctions. 18 19 Respectfully submitted, 20 CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP 21 2 Dated: March 9, 2021 By /s/ Daniel L. Casas 23 Daniel L. Casas Attorney for Defendant 24 Rick Mirza BS ee se 3 ee 25 Bz BB ae BS az ao ga Be 26 8 a6 aS 27 28 Marquez v. Mirza REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO. CASE NO, 20CV373028 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MPA ISO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PAGE 2 Exhibit | CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528) 55 North 3 Street Campbell, CA 95008 Office: 650-948-7200 Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Attorneys for Defendants Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 10 il 12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., Case No.: 20CV373028 13 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. CASAS 14 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ Vv, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO 1 RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND 16 Husband and Wife, COMPLAINT 17 Defendants [ccp § 128.7] 18 DATE: 19 TIME: DEPT: 20 ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020 21 22 23 / 24 BS BS 53 dz 25 as i ez aS 26 5 a Bs Hf 27 28 Marquez v. Mirza DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. CASAS ISO DEFENDANTS’ CASE NO. 20CV373028 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 1 I, Daniel L. Casas, declare: 1 As a licensed California attorney and partner of Casas Riley Simonian LLP, I represent defendants and tenants RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except for those facts stated on information and belief, which I believe to be true. I make the following declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7. This is a second lawsuit by Plaintiff Landlord who is attempting to evict Defendants from their Santana Row penthouse. On November 25, 2020, my office served Plaintiff's counsel with a copy of this Notice of 10 Motion for Sanctions and supporting documents. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and 11 correct copy of the Proof of Service dated November 25, 2020. 12 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 14 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on November 25, 2020 in 15 Campbell, California. 16 LO Darfiel . Casas 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ba Ba s3 dz 25 ae az ao Ze 26 52 Se BS 27 2 Marquez v. Mirza DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. CASAS ISO DEFENDANTS’ CASE NO. 20CV373028 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 1 CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528) 55 North 3 Street Campbell, CA 95008 Office: 650-948-7200 Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Attorneys for Defendants Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 10 11 12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., Case No.: 20CV373028 13 Plaintiff, PROOF OF SERVICE 14 Vv. 15 RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, 16 Husband and Wife, 17 Defendants 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE Iam employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 55 North 3% Street, Campbell, California 95008. On November 25, 2020, I served document(s) identified as: DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. CASAS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 10 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 11 DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 12 on the following interested parties in said action: 13 Maria S. Bellafronto 14 HOPKINS & CARLEY 70 S. First Street 15 San Jose, CA 95113 16 17 18 by using the following form of service: 19 X__ (VIA MAIL) I placed a true copy of the above-referenced documents in a sealed envelope 20 with postage thereon fully prepaid; I caused the envelope to be deposited in the mail at Campbell, California in accordance with the standard practice of Casas Riley Simonian LLP for collection 21 and processing of correspondence for mailing. I am familiar with the firm’s practice for collection 22 and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, mail is deposited, with postage thereon fully prepaid, with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of 23 business. 24 (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) I caused a true copy of the above-referenced documents to be transmitted by electronic mail transmission to the person(s) listed above at the e-mail address last 25 given by that person. 26 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 27 November 25, 2020, at Campbell, California. Warcele 28 Marcele Graviano PROOF OF SERVICE Electronically Filed CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP by Superior Court of CA, Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528) 55 North 3 Street County of Santa Clara, Campbell, CA 95008 on 12/17/2020 3:02 PM Office: 650-948-7200 Reviewed By: R. Tien Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Case #20CV373028 Envelope: 5494281 Attorneys for Defendants Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 10 11 12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., CaSE No.: 20CV373028 13 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 14 Vv. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 1 RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S 16 Husband and Wife, SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 17 Defendants [cce§ 128.7] 18 DATE: TIME: 19 DEPT: 20 ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020 21 22 23 24 MH Ba Ga gz 25 // ae az aS 26 Sz / 27 MH 28 Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page | I INTRODUCTION Defendants Rick and Marina Mirza (Tenants) move the Court to issue an Order for monetary lsanctions against Plaintiff GABRIEL MARQUEZ, JR. (Landlord) and his attorneys of record for filing a meritless unlimited civil action while his unlawful detainer case is pending, pursuant to (California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §128.7. The same day that Plaintiff's demand for a trial date was denied in his unlawful detainer laction (Case No. 20CV368975), Landlord notified Tenants of an attempted self-help repossession of \Tenants’ Santana Row penthouse apartment which was unsuccessful. The attempt having been 10 thwarted Plaintiff filed a new unlimited civil action seeking, in part, the same relief he was previoush 11 denied. Plaintiff obviously seeks a different ruling from a different courtroom in the same courthouse, 12 Plaintiff's new complaint, and specifically his claim for injunctive relief was filed in bad 13 faith, deserving of a dismissal and sanctions against Landlord and his attorneys. 14 15 IL. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS 16 A. The Court is Authorized to Impose Sanctions 17 CCP §128.7(c) provides that the trial court may impose an appropriate sanction on attorneys. 18 law firms, or parties who have violated CCP § 128.7(b), which provides: 19 (b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or 20 later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the 21 best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 22 inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met: 23 (1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such 24 as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the Ba cost of litigation. Ga gz 25 ae (2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are az aS 26 warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, Sz a" modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. 27 28 \Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 2 (3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. (4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. CCP § 128.7(b) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff has violated multiple proscriptions of §128.7(b), specifically subsection (b)(1 land (2), as he seeks to remove Defendants Rick and Marina Mirza, from their Santana Ro ipenthouse apartment in violation of the Unlawful Detainer Act and in contravention of a prior ruling lby the Court in his unlawful detainer action. 10 To place this motion in context, the following timeline summarizes Plaintiff's course of 11 conduct in his attempted wrongful eviction of Tenants since July 2020: 12 e July 8, 2020 — Property management company and Landlord’s agent notified off 13 laundry room waste line blockage that resulted in flooding on the first and second 14 floors of the three-story penthouse. 15 July 17, 2020 (Friday) — Plaintiff's company dgSs & in-house counsel” notifies Tenants off 16 a unilateral lease termination, ordering Tenants to vacate the premises by July 20. 17 2020 (Monday). 18 August 7, 2020 — Plaintiff files his unlawful detainer action (Case No. 20CV368975) 19 on an ex parte application without notice to Defendants or their known counsel 20 RJN, Exhs. 1,2. 21 August 21, 2020 — Plaintiff files his second ex parte application for Injunctive 22 Relief/Temporary Restraining Order to circumvent the Unlawful Detainer Act whic! 23 this Court denied. RJN, Exh. 3. 24 Ba September 8, 2020 — Plaintiffs counsel notices an inspection, threatens to change the) Ga gz 25 ae locks on the penthouse apartment, and refuses to leave the premises during the az aS 26 Sz a" inspection, until security and San Jose Police arrive and direct him and his 27 companions to leave the leased premises. 28 Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 3 e October 28, 2020 — Plaintiff's request for a November 30 trial date in the unlawful detainer action is denied. Plaintiffs counsel then sends an email notifying Defendants’ counsel of a plan to enter the leased premises (without permission or stipulation) and begin demolition work at the apartment on October 30, 2020, ignoring Defendants’ counsel’s request to meet and confer on November 1, after he returns from vacation] Casas Decl. October 30, 2020 — Landlord’s attorney and a dozen construction workers descend 0: the leased premises and threaten to change the locks, enter the premises, and begii demolition work. Tenants’ security guard, a former San Jose police officer, objects to 10 Landlord’s agents entering the premises, and San Jose PD instructs the intruders to 11 leave the leased premises. 12 November 3, 2020 — Plaintiff files a new, unlimited civil action after his attempted 13 self-help repossession on October 30 is thwarted. The new action contains the same 14 allegations and relief sought in the unlawful detainer action—to remove Tenants from] 15 the apartment. 16 Bringing a new action for the same relief based on the same facts and law warrants sanctions for 17 the duplicative nature of the requests. Taylor v. Varga (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 750, 18 disapproved on other grounds by K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2020) 8 Cal. Sth 875, 879. In 19 Taylor, Defendants were subject to sanctions in connection with their appeal of default judgment, 20 based on the duplicative nature of their request, where they brought two separate motions for relief 21 22 based on the same facts and law. 23 The duplicative nature of the request was sufficient to justify the sanctions imposed. Neither the court, litigants, nor opposing counsel should be 24 subject to such sequential efforts to challenge rulings. This type of Ba Ga duplicative proceeding is not to be encouraged. Sanctions were properly gz 25 ae imposed. Taylor v. Varga, supra, at 762. az aS 26 Sz 27 28 Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 4 Clearly unwilling to abide by the Unlawful Detainer Act (CCP sections 1159, et seq.) and its Istrict procedural requirements, Plaintiff Landlord continues to utilize any means necessary to lexpedite an eviction of Rick and Marina Mirza. Plaintiff claims no specific monetary damages in his civil complaint and his requested injunctive relief is identical to the relief requested and denied in ithe unlawful detainer action, as well as in his most recent ex parte application filed in this action. Plaintiff's available relief relating to possession of the penthouse lies solely with the unlawful \detainer action. He cannot circumvent that process and effect an eviction of Defendants under the lguise of repairing the premises simply because there is a delay in setting trial dates in eviction cases. 10 Plaintiff cannot be allowed to “department shop” in the same courthouse because he is dissatisfied 11 ith the pace of his eviction case. Plaintiff's incessant litigation, harassment, and constructive 12 leviction are clearly meant to bully the Mirzas into relinquishing their leasehold estate. 13 Plaintiff's claims in his new civil action that he merely wants to repair the premises and did 14 Inot want to bring a legal action against his tenants are in direct contradiction to his termination of the 15 lease weeks into a two-year fixed term and his refusing to dismiss the unlawful detainer action. 16 17 B. Monetary Sanctions are Warranted Against Plaintiff and His Attorneys 18 If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court 19 determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below [21-day period to cure], impose an appropriate 20 sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In determining what 21 sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a 22 party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence. CCP § 128.7(c). 23 Defendants have repeatedly offered to coordinate repairs to the premises following dismissal 24 lof the wrongfully-filed unlawful detainer action, and Plaintiff has repeatedly refused. Instead, he and| Ba Ga gz 25 lhis attorneys have chosen the path of wasteful and frivolous litigation, even to go so far as attempted ae az aS 26 Sz lillegal self-help eviction. a" 27 28 \Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 5 In light of Landlord’s most recent escalation in filing his meritless civil action and hig continued pursuit of Tenants through unnecessary and harassing litigation and self-help tactics. \Defendants served Plaintiff with this motion for sanctions in accordance with the requirements of ICCP § 128.7(c)(1). See Casas Dec. ISO Motion for Sanctions. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is already pursuing his sole eviction remedy in his unlawful detainer action (Case INo. 20CV368975). His attempts to circumvent the Unlawful Detainer Act and to influence the [Tenants to vacate the leased premises and give up their two-year lease must be stopped. Defendants 10 [Rick and Marina Mirza request an order granting their sanctions motion and awarding costs of suit. 11 including filing fees and attorney’s fees, incurred in their defense and filing this motion in the sum of 12 $5,000. 13 14 Submitted, 15 CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP 16 Dated: November 25, 2020 By /s/ Daniel L. Casas 17 Daniel L. Casas 18 Attorneys for Defendants Rick and Marina Mirza 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ba Ga gz 25 ae az aS 26 Sz a" 27 28 Marquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 6 Electronically Filed i CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP by Superior Court of CA, Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528) 55 North 3“ Street County of Santa Clara, Campbell, CA 95008 on 12/17/2020 3:02 PM Office: 650-948-7200 Reviewed By: R. Tien Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Case #20CV373028 Envelope: 5494281 Attorneys for Defendants Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 10 11 12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., Case No.: 20CV373028 13 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF HEARING ON 14 Vv. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S 1 RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 16 Husband and Wife, [ccr § 128.7] 17 Defendants DATE: 18 TIME: DEPT: ——__ 19 20 ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020 21 22 23 TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: as B38 a sz 24 Please take notice that on ; 2020 at am/pm, or as soon me az sz 3a Ze 25 thereafter as this matter may be heard, in Department of the above-entitled Court, located at ~E aS 26 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113, Defendants RICK MIRZA and MARINA 27 larquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 1 28 MIRZA will and hereby does move for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR. and his attorneys of record in the amount of $5,000. The Motion for Sanctions is based upon the Complaint, this Notice, the accompanying Motion, supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, and all pleadings, papers, authorities, and records in this action, and any evidence and argument properly presented at the hearing. Submitted, CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP 10 Dated: November 25, 2020 By /s/ Daniel L. Casas 11 Daniel L. Casas 12 Attorneys for Defendants Rick and Marina Mirza 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 se ag a sz Be 24 meas az zg 4o $33a 25 &2 aS 26 27 larquez v. Mirza DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ICASE NO. 20CV373028 Page 2 28 Electronically Filed i CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP by Superior Court of CA, Daniel L. Casas (SBN 116528) 2 55 North 3 Street County of Santa Clara, Campbell, CA 95008 on 12/17/2020 3:02 PM 3 Office: 650-948-7200 Reviewed By: R. Tien Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Case #20CV373028 4 Envelope: 5494281 Attorneys for Defendants 5 Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 9 DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 10 11 12 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., CaSE No.: 20CV373028 13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF 14 Vv. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMONS AND 1 RICK MIRZA and MARINA MIRZA, COMPLAINT 16 Husband and Wife, 17 Defendants 18 DATE: TIME: 19 DEPT: 20 ACTION FILED: NOVEMBER 3, 2020 21 22 Defendants Rick and Marina Mirza request that this Court take notice, pursuant to California 2 Evidence Code sections 452(d) and 453, of the following documents in support of Defendants’ 24 Motion For Sanctions against Plaintiff: 2. ae Sz 1 The Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed in the above captioned matter with this ao 26 SZ Se Court, by Plaintiff Gustavo Marquez, Jr. on August 6, 2020. A true and correct copy of the 27 Complaint described herein is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 28 Marquez v. Mirza REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE. CASE NO. 20CV373028 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PAGE | i 2. Order Granting Application for Ex Parte Order dated August 6, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 3 3 Order Re: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Injunctive Relief/Temporary Restraining Order by Commissioner Johnson dated September 23, 2020. A true and correct copy of the 5 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 6 7 WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court take judicial notice of the above-described 8 documents and consider the same in considering Defendants’ motion for sanctions 9 10 Respectfully submitted, 11 CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP. 12 Dated: November 25, 2020 By /s/ Daniel L. Casas 14 Daniel L. Casas Attorney for Defendants 15 Rick and Marina Mirza 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 ee 3 82el Se 25 aa aa ps ao 26 ba LBS 27 28 Marquez v. Mirza REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE. CASE NO. 20CV373028 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PAGE 2 E-FILED 8/6/2020 9:45 AM Maria S. Bellafronto (State Bar No. 161994) Clerk of Court mbellafr@hopkinscarley.com Superior Court of CA, Andrew J. Ditlevsen (State Bar No. 284911) ajd@hopkinscarley.com County of Santa Clara HOPKINS & CARLEY 20CV368975 A Law Corporation Reviewed By: M Vu The Letitia Building 70 S. First Street San Jose, CA 95113-2406 mailing address: P.O. Box 1469 San Jose, CA 95109-1469 Telephone: (408) 286-9800 Facsimile: (408) 998-4790 Attorneys for Plaintiff GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR. 10 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 13 14 LIMITED JURISDICTION 15 GUSTAVO MARQUEZ, JR., an individual, LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY DOES NOT EXCEED 16 Plaintiff, $10,000 20CV368975 17 Vv. CASE NO. 18 RICK MIRZA, MARINA MIRZA, and VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DOES 1 through 10, inclusive DETAINER 19 Defendants, FILED UNDER EMERGENCY RULE 1 OF 20 THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 21 [Public Health and Safety Exception] 22 23 Plaintiff Gustavo Marquez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: 24 1 Plaintiff files this Unlawful Detainer Complaint pursuant to Emergency Rule 1 of 25 the California Rules of Court in order to protect public health and safety. Plaintiff seeks an 26 expedited trial date under CRC Emergency Rule 1 (d) for this reason. As detailed below, the 27 residential premises at issue consists of real property commonly known as 356 Santana Row, Unit 28 Hopkins & CARIRY No. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN Jose. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER d by the 306, San Jose, California 95128, which is a two-story condominium unit occupie units owned by third Defendants, and which shares walls with and is located directly above other to a raw sewage leak, the parties (the “Premises”). The Premises has become uninhabitable due drywall remediation of which requires removal and replacement of various flooring types and tion throughout the Premises. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the scope of remedia and five months. proposed by Plaintiff's professional remediation company will be between three g Mrs. Mirza The “level three” dark water poses an abated health hazard to Defendants, includin facts, Defendants, who is pregnant, as, well as other tenants in the adjoining units. Despite these primarily Mr. Mirza, refuse to relocate from the Premises so that remediation work can 10 commence, imposing further exigency on this filing. 18 1 2, Plaintiffis, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual over the age of 12 years, and a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. ts 13 3. Plaintiff is the owner of the Premises, possession of which is sought from Defendan 14 in this action. 15 4 Defendants Rick Mirza and Marina Mirza are in possession of the Premises pursuant is attached 16 to a written lease, dated June 2, 2020 (the “Lease”), a true and correct copy of which 17 hereto as Exhibit A. in the 18 5 Defendants are, and at all times herein mentioned were, individuals residing d interest 19 Premises located in Santa Clara County. As stated in the Lease, Defendants’ leasehol $8,500.00 per month, 20 commenced on June 15, 2020 for a two year term. Defendants agreed to pay is not based 21 payable on the first of each month pursuant to the Lease, however, this unlawful detainer e 22 on nonpayment of rent. Mr. Mirza is a self-described private equity financier and executiv both 23 functioning across a range of industries including hospitality, real estate and alternative energy, be financially very 24 domestically and internationally. By all outward appearances, he appears to 25 successful and is not in default on his rent. 26 6 Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 10, the same have 27 inclusive, and will seek leave of court to allege said true names and capacities when including the Defendants 28 been ascertained. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants, Hopkins& CARLEY -2- ‘Arrorneys AT LAW 906\3582275.3 Saw Jost VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER served as DOE herein, was the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants and in doing the things herein mentioned was acting within the scope of such agency and/or employment. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants, including the defendants served as DOE herein, claim some type of possessory interest in and to the Premises. Plaintiff shall hereinafter refer to the Mirza Defendants, and DOES 1 through 10, collectively as “Defendants.” 7 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that on or about July 8, 2020, Defendants caused the plumbing within the Premises to become clogged by their improper and negligent disposal of used baby wipes, which caused a leak(s) within the Premises. Subsequently, 10 after causing the plumbing blockage, Defendants permitted a handy man to rem