Patterico's Pontifications


Kozinski Foe Cyrus Sanai Declared Vexatious Litigant

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:25 am

Most of you will rememeber Cyrus Sanai as the guy who told the world about the collection of off-color material on the website/server of federal appellate judge Alex Kozinski — a story we covered here in depth on this blog when it broke. Some of you have since gotten to know Cyrus better as the guy who drops into the comments to lecture us all on his particular views regarding DNA statistics and the like. Now you can know him as the guy who was declared a vexatious litigant by the Los Angeles courts! (In essence, this means that, in the future, he has to ask for court permission before filing a lawsuit.)

The order is here. In it, the court finds that Sanai has engaged in “frivolous and improper” litigation tactics, including “attempt[ing] to acquire a fraudulent abstract of judgment” — tactics which, the court concludes, “speak to an improper motive to grind down the other side and to keep them from being able to move forward in the litigation.” Perhaps some of the most interesting parts of the order are the quotes from Judge Terry Green, one of several judges that Sanai has challenged. Here is a representative quote from Judge Green during one of the hearings on Sanai’s misconduct:

There is more like that.

Sanai, of course, challenged the judge who issued this order, and in fact all judges in Los Angeles County. So there are your grounds for appeal — which means there will be yet another entertaining order (from the appellate courts) in the coming months and years.

It’s an endless saga. Which is kind of the court’s point.

54 Responses to “Kozinski Foe Cyrus Sanai Declared Vexatious Litigant”

  1. Suck it, Cyrus…

    SUCK IT!

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  2. I long for the day this ends up in front of the Supreme Court…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  3. I have the feeling a Sanaian Wall O’ Text will be forthcoming. Coffee up, troops!

    Simon Jester (742baf)

  4. Sic semper troll.

    Kevin M (298030)

  5. Cyrus the Virus never fails to entertain.

    JD (318f81)

  6. Cyrus will no doubt appear to tell us how this is actually a victory in his grand strategy.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  7. I’m thinking the Black Knight meme from Monty Python, daley.

    Simon Jester (742baf)

  8. i just want to point out for the record that there is no evidence that cyrus is actually kman. :-)

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  9. I like comparing him to Charles Emerson Winchester III from MASH for the bloviation when he appears here.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  10. I always thought he was more of a Frank Burns…

    Winchester was, at least, good at what he did.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  11. Scott – Good point, but he’s got Winchester’s body type and sweats a lot.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  12. Kman is actually that guy I accidentally dropkicked down a flight of stairs.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  13. Looks like another Commandment handed down on Sinai.

    Mitch (f6d1b0)

  14. Now, if only Judge Terry Green could be assigned to the Lindsay Lohan case.

    ropelight (a82fa2)

  15. No better yet assign Jharp to the Lindsay Justsaynohan case.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  16. Thus after 3400 years a new edict is necessarily added to the Sinai Code. Good job Cyrus, mankind managed with only ten commandments until now! You’re striking out into new territory.


    bonhomme (96bbe4)

  17. Cyrus Sanai – Winning!

    luagha (5cbe06)

  18. Maybe after a certain number of cases are thrown out the vexatious litigants that after they are indeed semi-barred from courts but can get back their rights through trial by ordeal. If they are not serious or liars its doubtful if they would proceed.

    Pat Patterson (5b662a)

  19. I am shocked that the day passed with no word from Cyrus. I thought he’d be on this like happyfeet on a Palin thread.

    Patterico (371419)

  20. So maybe the lawyers here can inform me: At what point does his behavior get referred to the California Bar Association for investigation?

    JVW (fb14f8)

  21. JVW, I think he’s already been referred. Certainly, a vexatious litigant is a referral to attorney regulation … or was when I last practiced in California.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. Thanks SPQR. I would feel a lot better about the legal profession if I knew that they were proactive in this sort of disciplinary action.

    JVW (fb14f8)

  23. JVW, Patterico probably disagrees but one of my long-running pet peeves when I was practicing in California was its crappy attorney discipline system. Where I practice now, I see attorneys being disbarred for stuff I saw get mere slaps on the wrist or a few months suspension.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  24. “I am shocked that the day passed with no word from Cyrus. I thought he’d be on this like happyfeet on a Palin thread.”

    Patterico – Perhaps since the Ninth Circuit referred to his comments on blogs, specifically this one, he has decided to act in a more circumspect manner. But with an ego like his, naaaah, he’s just figuring out what to lecture the rubes here about before descending in a cloud of indignation and polysyllabic profundity, while attempting to distract from reality. SOS, different day.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. That should read: “… mere slaps on the wrist or a few months suspension in California.”

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. daleyrocks, yeah and we just missed the Rapture too.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. “daleyrocks, yeah and we just missed the Rapture too.”

    SPQR – Who is we? I didn’t miss nothing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  28. daleyrocks, hehe.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. SPQR – I usually don’t talk about my sex life on this blog.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  30. daleyrocks, and you can be assured that we all appreciate it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. daleyrocks, and you can be assured that we all appreciate it.

    I am pretty sure that your sheep appreciate it too.

    JD (318f81)

  32. I’am pretty sure your sheep appreciate it.

    I dunno I’am not his sheep.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  33. You guys are sicker than Cyrus.

    Strike that, I like you guys.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  34. daleyrocks, you own a kilt. Admit it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. Finally!

    It only took what, two years and eleven months from the Kozinski kerfuffle to declare Cyrus Sanai to be vexatious? It’s reminiscent of the never-ending asbestos and silicone breast implant litigation.

    bridget (899c28)

  36. Is that THE Bridget?!

    JD (318f81)

  37. “daleyrocks, you own a kilt. Admit it.”

    SPQR – JD gives me hand-me-downs.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  38. Mine does not fit. Lost 30+ pounds. Still go commando, just have to yank the belt a bit tighter.

    JD (318f81)

  39. That is THE bridget.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  40. “That is THE bridget.”

    Don’t tell Scott.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  41. OK.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  42. This is THE Dev (she’s the one with the snazzy sunglasses)


    happyfeet (61e8dc)

  43. Scott doesn’t much care.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  44. Is there some way to use this to get Cyrus into the DNA database?

    Kevin M (298030)

  45. Scott doesn’t much care.

    That’s a new one on me.

    What are you, Bob Dole?

    Patterico wants to know.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  46. Scott doesn’t much care.

    No surprise there.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  47. Scott is apathetic?

    Here Scott here is a link for you to click!

    It probably won’t help alleviate the crushing nihilism what has embraced you in its icy grip.

    But really it’s not like any link is gonna do that you know what I mean?

    One must moderate one’s expectations.

    happyfeet (61e8dc)

  48. Mr. Jacobs may not be suffering from ennui or malaise, so much as expressing debonaire detachment. Just a thought.

    bridget (899c28)

  49. Substitute “a damn” with “a limp-wristed f**k”, and that’s actually pretty close.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  50. The reason for the order is simple: I discovered that while he was handling the case, Judge Terry Green’s wife, Leslie Green, was a partner in a law firm employed by one of the subsidiaries of the First American Corporation–another subsidiary was a defendant in the law suit. Later I discovered that her firm was also employed by the parent company itself. When brought to the attention of Terry Green, he ruled that the information Leslie Green’s firm put on its web site was unreliable and not admissible. He also ruled that under California law, it permissible for a judge or his wife to be receiving money from a sister company or parent company of a private defendant in a case before that judge, and the Court of Appeal apparently agreed.

    However, this did not dispose of the federal due process argument. Judge Green’s order was a direct product of his financial interest in the case. His finding was and is nonsense–I filed a proper memorandum of costs after he made a made a meaningly order on a motion that was jurisdictionally barred. The judgement I received was signed by him and augmented by the clerk of the court after the other side refused to file a timely challenge to the request for costs.

    Judge Green’s quote is not news. It is set out in Sanai v. Saltz (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 746.

    “The trial court ruled Mr. Sanai’s service of his memorandum of costs after judgment was defective as to the various corporate defendants (although not as to Mr. Saltz personally) and expressly found Mr. Sanai “intentionally altered court documents to show that certain individuals were served on behalf of corporate defendants.””

    The issue you are addressing was when the clerk asked me to write down additional information, did I know she intended to attach my handwritten notes to the proof of service? The answer was no, because I served the documents as required under the relevant statute–to the corporate defendants, and not an agent. The statute requires that I do it the way I did it.

    Judge Green then held a hearing without notice, called the clerk up, and she testified that she had deliberately asked me to alter a proof of service and that I did it in front of her. While I did provider her the information she requested, I had no idea she would then attach my notations to the proof of service, since that would have made my entirely proper service improper. I testified that I did not intend that the notations she asked for were intended for the proof of service, since that would not have been in accordance with the trial court. I further got the clerk to admit that what she testified she asked me to do was improper.

    Judge Green then concluded, as set forth above, that “she”, the clerk was telling the truth–she had asked me to alter a proof of service to show it addressed different from the one that was in the proof of service filed with the Court, and which was, indeed, the exactly proper addressee. My testimony, that that I only provided the information she asked for because she asked for it, and never intended it to be considered part of the proof of service.

    Judge Green found that at the request of a court clerk, I had altered a proof of service to show service on individuals on behalf of corporate defendents, when I contend then and now that the way the documents were served was proper.

    That’s the issue. What is remarkable is that for Judge Green’s ruling to be correct, the court clerk who asked me for the notations and then incorporated into the proof of service was guilty of misconduct. But of course, the facts will show the opposite–that she testified the way she did because it was what Judge Green wanted on the record, even though her story makes no sense at all.

    Judge Green’s factual findings could not be attacked on appeal on due process grounds because the United States Supreme Court opinion stating that you can’t be receiving a financial benefit from a shareholder or affiliate of a party in a lawsuit, Caperton v. Massey Energy, was issued dix months after my appeal of Judge Green’s order was concluded. Because Judge Green was overturned, I removed him from the case–the third judge to be disqualified.

    The next judge, Aurelio Munoz, ruled I could attack Judge Green’s order. Since then, however, the case was stayed by a third anti-SLAPP motion (which lost at the trial court and court of appeal level) and then stayed by the motion you refer to. Since I have reversed ever other negative ruing against me in the Court of Appeal–indeed my case has been dismissed twice at the trial court level and reinstated twice, I will reverse this one too.

    As for the request to recuse the entire Los Angeles County Superior Court bench, it is perfectly appropriate given that the counsel for the Los Angeles Superior Court has written me letters on behalf of Leslie Green, now also a judge, stating it will oppose any efforts to depose her to establish the admissible evidence that she and her husband were receiving money from First American Corporation. It is impossible to have a fair trial before a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge when the counsel for the court is taking a position in the matter. Moreover, the secret memorandum that the LA Superior Court relies on to reject bench-wide recusal motions, filed by the Superior Court counsel in the record, concedes that it is appropriate for judges to recuae when other judges must appear as a witness, but then takes the position that there is no method to accomplish this.

    Since I never got the statutory evidentiary hearing I am entitled to, this order will be reversed by the end of the year. If you want to see why I keep reversing the trial court, take a look at footnote 2 of pages 8-9, where the trial court ruled that under Fink v. Shemtov no evidentiary hearing need to be held. If you read that decision, you will see that the Court of Appeal explicitly held that an opportunity for an evidentiary haaring with live testimony was present and necessary on due process grounds.

    No one ever said being a whistleblower or enemy of corruption would be easy. Still, the trial court’s efforts to cut off my right to call Leslie Green to the stand to testify that she was receiving money from First American Corporation for work on behalf of itself and a subsidiary while her husband adjudicated a case for a sister subsidiary will not survive.

    Still, it;s nice to know Patterico that in addition to your day job you are working for the consumer credit reporting industry. No doubt you are on the special list kept for judges and other VIPS. See

    Cyrus Sanai (06a8c2)

  51. What the f**k took you so long, Cyrus?

    And your BS is still funny as hell.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  52. Indeed, comedy gold as he only reinforces with more examples of his compulsion to expound in ever tighter circles of obsession.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  53. Still, the trial court’s efforts to cut off my right to call Leslie Green to the stand to testify that she was receiving money from First American Corporation for work on behalf of itself and a subsidiary while her husband adjudicated a case for a sister subsidiary will not survive.

    I admire a long sentence as much as anyone. I’m guilty of more than my share of them. But it took me a while to diagram that one in my head. I thought it had a death threat at the end for a while, but then I figured out that it’s the “efforts” that won’t survive.

    Beldar (7c0dd5)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5122 secs.