Black v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. CA1/1

Filed 6/30/21 Black v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

DOMINIQUE BLACK, Cross-complainant and Appellant, A161284

v. (San Mateo County FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE Super. Ct. No. CIV511997) COMPANY, Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Dominique Black, appearing in propria persona, appeals from an order dismissing his cross-complaint against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Fireman’s Fund). We affirm. I. BACKGROUND This is the third opinion we have issued in this case. In the first opinion, we explained the origins of the parties’ dispute: “Dominique Black submitted a claim to his insurer, Fireman’s Fund . . . . The claim was initially denied and, over the next couple of years, Black communicated with company representatives through letters, emails, and telephone conversations. In these communications, Black complained, often in vitriolic terms, that Fireman’s Fund handled his claim improperly, engaged in illegal

1

activities, and had ties to the Nazi regime in Germany. [¶] Fireman’s Fund sued Black alleging that his communications amounted to civil extortion, interference with contractual relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair business practices.” (Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Black (Nov. 6, 2014, A136603) [nonpub. opn.] (Black I).) Black I arose from an appeal of an order denying Black’s special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.1 We affirmed the order, concluding that “Fireman’s Fund’s claims have at least minimal legal merit under the facts established thus far in the proceedings.” We otherwise took “no position on the strength of these claims.” (Black I, supra, A136603.) Although Black I was resolved in favor of Fireman’s Fund, the company nevertheless dismissed its complaint without prejudice. The case did not end, however, because Black filed a cross-complaint against Fireman’s Fund asserting various claims, including insurance bad faith. The cross-complaint was filed on January 26, 2015, and litigation on it proceeded. During the discovery period, Fireman’s Fund served at least three notices to depose Black’s proposed expert, but the depositions were all rescheduled multiple times at Black’s request. (Black v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Apr. 23, 2020, A155428) [nonpub. opn.] (Black II).) Eventually, the trial court ruled that “[t]here [was] no excuse for further delay” and ordered Black to produce the expert by July 20, 2018. (Ibid.) On July 20, Black filed a request to extend the expert discovery period, and the court denied it. (Ibid.) Two weeks later, Black filed yet another request to extend the expert discovery period and to “allow a further expert designation.” (Ibid.) The court again denied the request, this time