It is Defendants’ position that [Sanai's] entire action had no legitimate purpose, and was filed merely for purposes of harassment, and in bad faith. That much is apparent. Keep in mind, this entire case started because Plaintiff’s landlord sent a letter purporting to (lawfully) raise his rent. It contained an obvious typographical error inasmuch as it proposed a rent lower than the amount Plaintiff had been paying, even while apologizing for raising the rent. … Plaintiff has been litigating this case for about seven years, all because he attempted to seize on this obvious typographical error.This court specifically finds that this entire action has been prosecuted and maintained in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.
[Sanai] knew at the outset that there was no merit to any of his claims. He has admitted to such in deposition. No reasonable person would have thought he had a valid lease agreement under the circumstances. Plaintiff knew he had no reasonable belief that his rent had been lowered. Thus, he has always known that he owed a legitimate debt, because he knowingly and deliberately underpaid his rent. The debt that was reported to the credit agencies was indisputably valid. Therefore, Plaintiff’s action was frivolous and without merit.
Further, Plaintiff’s prosecution of this matter has been malicious, as evidenced by, among other things, the altering of documents presented to the Clerk’s office and the recording of illegal judgment liens with malice, and then refusing to remove them despite being ordered by the Court to do so. …
In the 35 years this Court has been actively engaged in litigation, 20 as an attorney and 15 as a Judge, this Court has never seen such an abuse of process as the prosecution by Plaintiff of this lawsuit.
We promised Mr. Sanai that we would post his appellate brief, which will be very persuasive to experienced attorneys as to who should prevail on appeal, and here it is:
When it comes to issuing written orders, Judge Green is a disaster. …
It is an understatement to say that demonstrating to Judge Green his deficient understanding of civil procedure—i.e. that striking a memorandum of costs after the costs have been reduced to a judgment is a null and void act—infuriated him. Respondents filed a motion to require Sanai to file acknowledgements of satisfaction of judgment and to recall and quash abstracts of judgment, and requested damages, including attorneys fees as a component of such damages. APPAPP 474-475. Judge Green granted the motion and fined Sanai $500.00, but did not grant the request for damages or attorneys fees as a component of damages. …
Sanai filed two separate petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to have Judge Green removed pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §170.1-3. Both were summarily denied.
The careful observer will note at pp. 38-39 that the lower court granted attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(c) and Mr. Sanai’s brief relies on 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a) in arguing that the fee award is improper. One imagines the respondents’ brief pointed this out, and we’ll be happy to post that brief, too.
Sanai protests that we didn’t immediately post the brief. Sanai e-mailed the brief to Walter at 6:37 pm, Walter e-mailed it to me at 7:23 pm, and I received the e-mail when I returned home from a Chinese restaurant with my domestic partner at about 10 pm. (I had the cumin fish, which was quite tasty, and, in my opinion, was worth the delay to this post.)