Hilarita Belvedere, L.P. v. Zandt

1

HILARITA BELVEDERE, L.P., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAROL VAN ZANDT et al. Defendants and Appellants

A164707, A165413

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

December 21, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV2002404

Richman, J.

Here we address two consolidated appeals filed by three selfrepresented parties who were defendants below-Carol Van Zandt, Barbara E. Wilson, and Raymond Crouse (when referred to collectively, appellants). The first appeal is from a judgment that followed the striking of appellants' answers when, despite several court orders and other warnings, appellants refused to participate in any discovery. The second appeal is from an order denying appellants' belated motion to disqualify the law firm representing their adversary, a motion made after their default was entered. We order the appeals consolidated for all purposes, conclude that neither appeal has merit, and affirm the judgment and the order.

BACKGROUND

The General Setting

In March 2019 plaintiff/respondent Hilarita Belvedere, LP (Hilarita) bought the Hilarita, an income-restricted affordable housing facility in Tiburon (the property). The property consists of 102 units spread across 14 buildings 100 units of which are restricted pursuant to a HUD use agreement to be occupied by very-low, low, and moderate-income households. The property was built in the early 1970s, has not undergone any significant renovations in the last 50 years, and currently requires approximately $25 million in renovations to increase accessibility, replace numerous parts of all 14 buildings, and address persistent plumbing issues.

The property was sold to Hilarita by the Hilarita-Tiburon Ecumenical Association (HTEA), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. The transaction was reviewed and approved by HUD, and on March 25, 2019, the grant deed conveying the property from HTEA to Hilarita was recorded in the official records in Marin County.

Appellants each live in an income-restricted unit on the property. Shortly after Hilarita's acquisition of the property appellants (along with others) objected to the sale, based on the claim that federal law gave them a right of first refusal and/or an option to purchase the property from HTEA. Then, on January 30, 2020, five people-the three appellants, Mansureh Farsi, and Ryan Kricensky-recorded a document entitled "Notice of NonAcceptance of Recorded Corporation Grant Deed" in the official records of Marin County (No 2020-0003848) (notice), which notice was a cloud on title preventing Hilarita from securing financing for the required renovations.

The Proceedings Below

On September 18, 2020, Hilarita filed a verified compliant for quiet title and slander of title, naming five defendants: the three appellants, Farsi, and Kricensky. According to the register of actions, appellants filed separate answers representing themselves in propria persona.^[1]

A case management conference was held on March 22, 2021 at which the case was set for court trial on September 7. At that conference counsel for Hilarita reported that "discovery requests have been sent to defendants, but no responses have been received." The court itself would later describe what occurred this way:

"In February of 2021, plaintiff served requests for production (set one), form interrogatories, and requests for admission (set one) on defendants Raymond Crouse, Ryan Kricensky and Barbara E. Wilson. Although due in early March, defendants served no responses. On March 22, 2021, the defendants (except Barbara E. Wilson) attended a case management conference with the court and asserted that only defendant Van Zandt had received the discovery requests. Plaintiff therefore re-served defendants with the identifical [sic] requests on March 25, 2021. Again defendants failed to respond. Plaintiff's counsel wrote to each of the defendants regarding their failure and demanded a response.

"On May 4, 2021, defendant Crouse responded by letter and asserted that '[T]he discoveries you request are privileged pursuant to California Government Code § 8547 et[] seq., and Federal False Claims Act Title 31 U.S.C § 3729 et seq., Title 18 United States Code sections 3771 federal crime victim rights, all of which related to various Title 18 United States Code sections [sic] §1001 §1002, §1018 and §1031 felonies committed by personnel who have operated and continue to operate for your client Hilarita Belvedere L.P.' No further explanation was provided. Defendants Kricensky and Wilson did not respond to the correspondence.

"Plaintiff next moved to compel responses, deem the requests admitted, and impose sanctions. The motion was referred (along with a companion discovery motion against defendant Van Zandt) to the court's discovery facilitation program pursuant to Civil Local Rule 1.13. A facilitator was assigned who contacted plaintiff and defendants to set up a time to discuss the dispute. Defendants, however, did not respond to the court's facilitator."

As indicated, Hilarita filed motions on the discovery issues. Appellants filed no opposition. And on July 13, the court granted the motions against Van Zandt, and later an order granting "[t]he unopposed motions of plaintiff to compel discovery responses, establish admissions, and for sanctions against defendants Raymond Crouse, Ryan Kricensky and Barbara E. Wilson." That latter order also stated this: "Trial has been set for September 2021. The matter is currently before the court on a discovery dispute that arrives on the heels of the court's recent order compelling discovery and granting sanctions against defendant Carol Van Zandt. In its written ruling on that motion, the court placed the remaining defendants on notice that the misuse of the discovery process, including the refusal to respond to lawful discovery requests or participate in the court's discovery facilitator program, could result in the imposition of monetary sanctions. As was the case with defendant Van Zandt, the defendants at issue in these motions have chosen to ignore their discovery obligations and have refused to participate in the court's facilitation process."

We digress briefly from discussion of the discovery-related issues to note that while appellants refused to comply with their discovery obligations or otherwise comply with court orders, they filed a myriad of motions that were utterly without merit, some of which defy description. Two illustrations should suffice:

Appellants filed a "joint special appearance, joint notice of motion and motion directed to certain California cannons [sic] of judicial ethics that bind Honorable Judge Stephen P. Freccero to higher court decisions requiring him to sua sponte issue orders consistent with those higher court decisions." The motion was denied.

Appellants filed a joint motion "to vacate all orders and dismiss case forthwith." That motion was also denied, with this explanation: "Defendants now seek an order vacating the court's previous orders and dismissing the action. They provide no legal basis for the request and instead raise objections to perceived deficiencies in the court's register of actions. Defendants contend that '[T]he court must maintain official accurate records or its actions have no verity because what does not appear does not exist in law.' [Citation.]

"The register of actions is maintained by the clerk and its use by the superior court is optional. (Gov[.] Code, § 69845; see Ten Eyck v. Industrial Forklifts Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 540, 543-544.) The court's case file maintains copies of properly filed documents. In the present case, the case file contains the filed-stamped copies of the discovery motions and the court's orders granting those motions. The orders compelling discovery were served on defendants along with notices of the entry of the orders. There is no legal basis to now vacate those orders.

"Defendants also cite to a recent decision by the California Supreme Court In re Humphrey as authority for the relief they seek. The citation in unexplained. The referenced decision arose from a criminal habeas corpus proceeding related to challenges to cash bail. The decision has no bearing on the present quiet title action.

'"Finally, defendants point to an entry in the register of action[s] and argue that this action has been unconstitutionally converted to a 'juvenile court proceeding.' The entry in the register is plainly a typographical error and has no effect on these proceedings."

On August 24, the trial court issued an order to show cause (OSC) why the court should not strike appellants' answers and enter a default judgment against them, scheduling a hearing on the OSC for November. As set forth in its later-filed order, the court described what followed:

"On August 24, 2021, this court issued an order to show cause ('OSC') to defendants Carol Van Zandt, Raymond Crouse, and Barbara E. Wilson . . . as to why the court should not strike their answers and enter defaults against them for their failure to comply with the court's orders. The court ordered the defendants to file written responses no later than October 29, 2021.

"On September 17, 2021, defendants Van Zandt and Crouse filed a response to the OSC indicating that 'the undersigned defendants will not further participate in these unconstitutional proceedings.' On October 29, 2021 plaintiff submitted a response to the OSC that included an evidentiary submission in support of the imposition of terminating sanctions. On November 2, 2021, defendants filed a response to plaintiff's submission.

"This hearing was scheduled far in advance in order to provide defendants an opportunity to comply with the court's discovery orders or show cause why...