Mazzaferro v. Parisi et al

Filing 113

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND VACATING HEARINGS, Motions terminated: 93 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Ronald Spencer Mazzaferro, 106 MOTION to Alter Judgment PLAINTIFF RONALD MAZZ AFERROS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT INCORPORATED UNDERLYING INCORRECT ORDER filed by Ronald Spencer Mazzaferro. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/11/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2017) Modified on 8/11/2017 (whalc1, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 RONALD MAZZAFERRO, No. C 16-05641 WHA 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND VACATING HEARING WILLIAM PARISI, KEN JOHNSON, SPENCER CRUM, BRUCE GOLDSTEIN, JOSHUA MYERS, and LYNN SEARLE, Defendants. / 13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 16 17 Pro se plaintiff moves for sanctions and for relief from judgment. For the reasons below, the motions are DENIED. STATEMENT 18 19 In October 2016, pro se plaintiff Ronald Mazzaferro filed an action under Section 1983 20 for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights (Dkt. 1). Certain claims and parties have since 21 been dismissed. Most recently, Attorney Lynn Searle was dismissed from the complaint, and, 22 pursuant to her motion under FRCP 54(b), judgment was entered in her favor (Dkt. Nos. 80, 23 102–103). In her FRCP 54(b) motion, Attorney Searle stated that Mazzaferro had filed 12 24 lawsuits against her, and Mazzaferro and his associates had filed 61 lawsuits in total since 2009 25 against either Attorney Searle, her clients, or their counsel, none of which he has prevailed on 26 (Dkt. No. 90 at 9 n.5). 27 28 In response to Attorney Searle’s FRCP 54(b) motion, Mazzaferro filed a motion for sanctions (Dkt. Nos. 93, 94). In it, Mazzaferro contends that Attorney Searle, and her attorney in this action, Alex Graft, lied to the Court regarding Mazzaferro’s classification as a vexatious 1 litigant, and past record of lawsuits against Attorney Searle and others. He subsequently filed a 2 motion for correction of judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3) on the grounds that the judgment 3 against him was based upon lies contained in Attorney Searle’s motion for judgment pursuant to 4 FRCP 54(b) (Dkt. Nos. 106–107). 5 This order finds that Attorneys Searle and Graft have not made any misrepresentations 6 regarding Mazzaferro. Accordingly, Mazzaferro’s motions for sanctions and to correct 7 judgment are both DENIED. 8 ANALYSIS 9 1. FRCP 11 provides that a court may enter sanctions against a party who presents factual 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 NO SANCTIONABLE CONDUCT UNDER FRCP 11. contentions to the court without evidentiary support. Mazzaferro seeks sanctions on the 12 grounds that Attorney Searle’s motion for FRCP 54(b) judgment stated that he had been 13 designated a vexatious litigant, and presented a list of actions Mazzaferro has pursued, which he 14 claims contains certain inaccuracies as detailed in his declaration in support of his motion for 15 sanctions (Dkt. No. 95 at 2–16).1 Neither of these contentions are accurate. 16 First, Mazzaferro has been designated a vexatious litigant by the California Judicial 17 Council as reflected in Attorney Searle’s motion for final judgment and the August 1, 2017 18 Vexatious Litigant List maintained by the California Judicial Council, which can be located at 19 20 Second, the list of lawsuits provided by Attorney Searle in her motion for final judgment 21 does not contain any inaccuracies. Nor does Mazzaferro’s contention that he prevailed in one 22 of his lawsuits, contrary to Attorney Searle’s assertion, hold any weight. He claims to have 23 prevailed in one suit because he entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement, however, 24 provided that Mazzaferro pay 2.327 million dollars — the amount he allegedly wrongfully took 25 — in exchange for a release of claims against him (Dkt. No. 94-4 at 11–12). This is not 26 prevailing. Attorney Searle’s statement that he did not prevail in any of his lawsuits is not 27 28 1 Mazzaferro purports to bring this action under Civil Local Rule 11-4, but it appears that this is an error. This order treats his motion as one brought pursuant to FRCP 11. 2 1 disproved or rendered fraudulent by this settlement, and Mazzaferro offers no other evidence 2 indicating that he prevailed in any of his lawsuits. NO FRAUD PURSUANT TO FRCP 60(b)(3). 3 2. 4 FRCP 60(b)(3) provides that “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative 5 from a final judgment” on the basis of “fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 6 opposing party.” Since Mazzaferro’s motion for relief from judgment is based upon the same alleged 7 8 misrepresentations as his motion for sanctions, the reasoning above applies here. Neither 9 Attorney Searle, nor Attorney Graft have made a misrepresentation or committed fraud. Therefore, Mazzaferro’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, Mazzaferro’s motion for sanctions and motion for relief from 13 judgment are DENIED. The August 17 hearing on the motion for sanctions and the September 14 21 hearing on the motion for correction of judgment are HEREBY VACATED. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: August 11, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?