Mazzaferro v. Parisi et al

Filing 122

ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND REQUIRING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES re 119 Order Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/10/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2017)

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 HOLDING IN ABEYANCE
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
REQUIRING PAYMENT OF
ATTORNEYS’ FEES

WILLIAM PARISI, KEN JOHNSON,
SPENCER CRUM, BRUCE GOLDSTEIN,
JOSHUA MYERS, and LYNN SEARLE,
Defendants.
/

13
14
15

On September 22, pro se plaintiff Ronald Mazzaferro was ordered to show cause why

16

this action should not be dismissed as a sanction for his frivolous and bad faith litigation tactics

17

(Dkt. No. 119).

18

Mazzaferro initiated this action in October 2016, alleging Section 1983 claims against

19

various parties including Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs, Sonoma County Counsel attorneys, a

20

private attorney, and the State Bar of California. His suit has proved meritless and resulted in

21

dismissal after dismissal of named defendants (Dkt. Nos. 27, 80, 119). Nevertheless,

22

Mazzaferro has generated voluminous litigation of collateral issues due to his bad faith and

23

abusive litigation tactics. For example, Mazzaferro moved for default against one of the

24

Sonoma County Deputy defendants. As it turned out, however, he had never served the

25

defendant and simply filed a false affidavit of service, misleading the clerk (Dkt. No. 58 at 3).

26

Accordingly, after motion practice to resolve the issue, an order set aside default (ibid.).

27
28

In another instance, following an order dismissing a private attorney defendant, she
moved for judgment under FRCP 54(b), noting in her motion that a final entry of judgment was
particularly appropriate because Mazzaferro had named her in many other suits and the entry of

1

judgment could give preclusive effect to duplicative claims (Dkt. No. 90 at 9). In addition to

2

opposing her motion for entry of judgment, Mazzaferro promptly filed a frivolous motion

3

seeking sanctions against the defendant, in part for her having correctly identified him as a

4

designated vexatious litigant in the California courts (Dkt. Nos. 94, 95). Thereafter, judgment

5

was entered in the defendant’s favor against Mazzaferro and he filed another motion, lacking

6

any basis in the law, to set aside the judgment (see Dkt. Nos. 102, 106).

7

In the most recent incident giving rise to this order to show cause, attorneys from the

8

Sonoma County Counsel Office moved to dismiss claims Mazzaferro brought against them,

9

apparently for representing their clients, Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs. Prior to the County
Counsel’s motion to dismiss, Mazzaferro had already been admonished that his suit against

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

these attorneys was inappropriate. A February 2017 order informed Mazzaferro that Sonoma

12

County Counsel are entitled to represent Sonoma County law enforcement officers, and that

13

Mazzaferro’s contention to the contrary was “wrong” (Dkt. No. 58 at 3). Following that order,

14

one of the Sonoma County Counsel defendants wrote Mazzaferro a letter pointing him to the

15

California Government Code Sections that authorize County Counsel to represent officers and

16

employees of the county and asking that, pursuant to the Court’s admonitions, he withdraw his

17

claims against the attorney defendants (Dkt. No. 110 at 7). Mazzaferro ignored these warnings

18

and continued to name Sonoma County Counsel in his suit with no legitimate legal basis for

19

doing so (see Dkt. Nos. 62, 84, 99).

20

Sonoma County Counsel, Attorneys Bruce Goldstein and Joshua Myers, moved for

21

dismissal, which dismissal was granted on September 22 (Dkt. No. 119). In the order

22

dismissing Attorneys Goldstein and Myers, Mazzaferro was ordered to show cause why his

23

action should not be dismissed in its entirety as a result of his bad faith litigation tactics (id. at

24

4–5). Mazzaferro submitted a response to the order to show cause arguing not only that his suit

25

should not be dismissed, but that he should be given an opportunity to amend his complaint to

26

state additional claims against the Sonoma County Counsel defendants (Dkt. No. 120 at 17).

27

He also appeared at a hearing on his order to show cause, at which he likewise refused to

28

acknowledge that the Sonoma County Counsel have a right to represent their clients in this suit.
2

1

Mazzaferro’s actions constitute bad faith from which he evidently cannot be deterred.

2

Rather than pursue legitimate claims, this suit has become merely a vehicle for Mazzaferro to

3

visit abuse upon officials in Sonoma County.

4

Nevertheless, this order does not yet dismiss Mazzaferro’s action in its entirety. Instead,

5

it holds in abeyance the order to show cause, and requires Mazzaferro to pay Sonoma County

6

Counsel defendants, Bruce Goldstein and Joshua Myers, their attorneys’ fees associated with

7

litigating their motion to dismiss Mazzaferro’s claims against them.

8

By OCTOBER 17, AT NOON, Attorneys Goldstein and Myers shall submit sworn

9

declarations setting forth the attorneys’ fees apportioned to their most recent motion to dismiss.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Mazzaferro shall file any opposition to those fees by OCTOBER 24, AT NOON.
After the appropriate fee amount is determined, Mazzaferro will have FOURTEEN DAYS

12

to pay defendants Goldstein and Myers. If he fails to do so, his case will very likely be

13

dismissed.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: October 10, 2017.

19

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3