Check out this opinion this afternoon from Justice Streeter. You can read the whole thing if you'd like, but the first three paragraphs are more than sufficient alone to give you an idea of what follows:
"Afshin Zand, representing himself, appeals from an order awarding
attorney’s fees against him under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,
subdivision (c)(1) (all further undesignated code references are to the Code of
Civil Procedure).
In a prior appeal, we affirmed an order dismissing Zand’s cross-complaint in an action filed by Ponani Sukumar and awarding Sukumar the
attorney’s fees he incurred to obtain the dismissal. (See Zand v. Sukumar
(Feb. 29, 2024, A163376) [nonpub. opn.] (Zand I).) Our opinion awarded
Sukumar additional attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, with the amount to be
determined on remand.
In this second appeal, we affirm again, seeing no merit to Zand’s
arguments attacking the attorney’s fees order entered on remand. We reject
each of Zand’s assertions of error as baseless and again order him to pay Sukumar’s attorney’s fees, this time for the present appeal. We also impose
sanctions for the pursuit of a frivolous appeal."
(Though I'll add that, if that's all you read, you'll miss out on some true nuggets. Like this one: "Zand’s arguments are all aggressively creative but not one of them has
a shred of merit." Or this one: "Continuing this pattern of making arguments that eventually resulted
in terminating sanctions below, Zand still refuses to get the message.")
I might well end this post by simply reminding everyone that, sometimes, it's better to simply quit while you're behind. But Justice Streeter makes this point even more explicitly -- and concretely -- in the final footnote of his opinion, which reads:
"One final point—a comment on relief we are not ordering, at least for
now—is also worthy of mention by way of forewarning. In his motion for
sanctions, Sukumar asks this court to declare Zand a vexatious litigant and
enter a prefiling order against him under section 391.7. . . . Sukumar’s section 391.7 request is arguably
warranted, but we decline at this time to declare Zand a vexatious litigant or
enter a prefiling order. We do advise Zand, however, that, given the
baselessness of the arguments and motions he has made in the prior appeal
(A163376) and again in the present appeal, we would seriously consider the
vexatious litigant question if he were to appear again in this court presenting
similar arguments. He should take note that, while he has avoided such a
finding for now, he is on the cusp of our deciding to enter one."
In short: Cut it out. Now.
