In re Findings of Parvizian CA2/2

Filed 6/5/13 In re Findings of Parvizian CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re Finding of B247787

SYRUS PARVIZIAN

As a Vexatious Litigant.

Syrus Parvizian, in pro. per.

BACKGROUND

Since 2004, Syrus Parvizian has filed 25 proceedings in this court, either appeals or original writ proceedings. Each case was resolved adversely to Parvizian. Although Parvizian enlisted counsel to represent him in some of the proceedings (at least initially), he filed many of the proceedings in propria persona. On April 8, 2013, we issued an order directing Parvizian to show cause why we should not find him to be a vexatious litigant within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1). That section defines a “vexatious litigant” as a person who, “[i]n the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii)

unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.”1 In the order to show cause, we identified 11 proceedings in this court in which Parvizian represented himself, and which were resolved adversely to him.2 These proceedings, briefly summarized, are as follows: B194981, B197281 and B204329. These three appeals concern the dissolution of Parvizian’s marriage to Malak Parvizian. The Parvizians married in 1967, separated in 1997, and litigated for more than 10 years thereafter. In 2008, Parvizian unsuccessfully appealed from an order denying his fourth motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him (B194481) and from an order granting Malak Parvizian’s motion for an order for the sale of property Parvizian owned. (B197281) In September 2008, Division Five affirmed a superior court order awarding costs to Malak Parvizian (B204329). B200401, B201877 and B203482. Parvizian was formerly employed by the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans). He filed two superior court complaints, one for damages based on violations of Government Code section 12940 et seq. and the other for breach of contract and other claims. The cases were consolidated. Caltrans propounded requests for admissions, which were deemed admitted when Parvizian failed to respond. Parvizian filed a petition for writ of mandate (B200401) which Division Five of this court denied on July 19, 2007. Two months later, after his superior court case had already been dismissed, Parvizian filed a second petition (B201877). Division Five denied the petition on September 14, 2007. Division Five affirmed the judgment of dismissal on September 12, 2008. (B203482). B215608. Parvizian filed another lawsuit against Caltrans. This new case was virtually identical to the cases that had previously been dismissed. The new case was