Rifkin VL Order

I
FILED
_..._CDun!)'_Qut
3
SfP
14 ZOIZ
ca
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Francisco
IO
Department No. 405
11
12
Petitioner,
13
CASE RESOLUTION ORDER# 8

FINDINGS & ORDER AFTER HEARING
RE: SUPPORT, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT,
ATTORNEYS' FEES, SANCTIONS,
DISCOVERY & CHANGE OF VENUE
vs.
14
15
Case No.: FDI-111-773974
RICHARD RJFKIN
KIMBERLY CARTY
Respondent.
16
17
On August 23, 2012 the parties appear to address the remaining issues set forth in Case
18
19
Resolution Order#7. Petitioner, Richard Rifkin, appears with new counsel, Flora Garcia
20
Sepulveda, and Respondent, Kimberly Carty, appears with counsel, L. Bailey Penzotti.
21
Hereafter, the parties respectively are referred t o as Petitioner or father and Respondent or
22
mother. 1Iaving considered the evidence offered, the arguments of counsel and the parties'
23
subsequent submissions, the Court issues the following Order.
24
//
25
Ii
Pa e 1
CaseNo.: FDI-11-773974
Case Resolution Order#
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE
CJBNS.ORG
Support
Father seeks child and spousal support. He testifies that his only source of income is
$1,189 in disability payments as a consequence of his recent operation for throat cancer. He
states that he went to Los Angeles to resume work as a mortgage broker but that the issuance of
the CLETS restraining order precludes him from obtaining the requisite license. At this time, he
bas no idea how to pursue employment. Petitioner's current I & E reflects expenses of $4,330.
He testifies that he receives family help and/or loans but does not provide any detail regarding
such support apart from his I& E which states that $3,141 of his expenses
In the Statement of Decision filed on July 27, 2012, there is a quotation from an email authored
are
"paid by others".
Io
by Petitioner wherein he states that he has the full support of his family, his family's resources
11
have "no frnancial limits whatsoever" and as a consequence, he has more resources than mother.
12
The record also reflects that father has retained more than one attorney in the course of this
13
litigation and estimates that he has paid attorneys approximately $40,000 and owes counsel
14
approximately that sum.
Mother is employed as an accountant on a contract basis at the rate of $6,250 per month.
15
16
Presently, she is looking for work in the Los Angeles area but has yet to secure a position. Her
17
temporary position in the Bay Area is to end in the near term. Mother's I & E reflects health
18
care insurance costs of $249 and $50 of uninsured medical costs.

Father's medical condition is undisputed and beyond the disability payments, his source
19
20
of income is ambiguous. In calculating child support, the Court imputes to father $4,330 per
21
month based on his current expenses and the ambiguity of his responses to questions regarding
22
the source of funds he receives from family and others.
23
24
25
As noted above, Petitioner appears at the above hearing with counsel and as recently as February2012, he appears
at the first Case Resolution Conference with counsel from a well known family law firm.
Pa e2
Case No.: FDI-11-773974
Case Resolution Order# 8
Given what can be discerned, it is appropriate to modify child support based on the
1
2
parties' present circumstances. Based on the attached Dissomaster calculation, father is to pay
monthly child support as of October 1, 2012 in the amount of$563 to mother.
Petitioner's request for spousal support is denied. This is a short term marriage;
Petitioner has engaged in domestic violence and a campaign of harassment toward Respondent.
It would be inequitable given the circumstances of this case to grant Petitioner's request.
Motion to Find Petitioner to Be a Vexatious Litigant

Respondent's motion gives Petitioner timely notice. The motion is based on CCP
8
9
391(b)(3): "In any litigation while acting in propria persona, [vexatious litigant means a person
1o
who] repeatedly files unmeritorious motions , pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary
11
discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary
12
delay." In support of the motion, Respondent offers the following facts:
13
A Temporary Restraining Order is entered against Petitioner on or about December 22,
14
2009 in which mother is granted temporary sole legal and physical custody of the
15
parties' child, Chaim, born September 2, 2008.
16
Father responds while represented by counsel with an ex parte request that asserts that
17
mother is a risk to abduct, abuse and neglect their minor child as well as charging
18
mother with fraud.
19
There are seven continuances before the Marin County Superior Court addresses these
20
issues in the course of a two day hearing. In the interim, Petitioner becomes a self-
21
represented litigant on April 22, 2010.
22
As a self-represented litigant, Petitioner files a motion on June 23, 2010 asserting that
23
Respondent is a risk to abduct, abuse and neglect Chaim, mother's children from a prior
24
marriage and again accusing mother of fraud.
25
Pa e 3
Case No.: FDI 11-773974
Case Resolution Order#
On August 5, 2010 Petitioner objects to the recommendation from the Marin Family
Court Services regarding custody and visitation again asserting that mother is a risk to
abduct, abuse and neglect Chaim as well
as
her other two children.
On August 9, 2010 the Marin County Superior Court enters a Restraining Order After
Hearing against Petitioner wherein the above allegations of Petitioner are before the
Court and rejected.
abuse and neglect Chaim, mother's other children and again accuses mother of fraud.
8
9
On September 16, 2010, Petitioner again alleges that Respondent is a risk to abduct,
The same allegations are made by Petitioner on the dates indicated -
10
October 14, 2010 in Opposition to the report of Marin's Family Court Services
11
March 10, 2011 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation that is denied
12
April 13, 2011 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation that is denied
13
July 7, 2011 OSC to modify custody/visitation
14
July 28, 2011 ex parte request to modify custody/visitation that is denied
15
August 1, 2011 in filings seeking to hold Respondent in contempt
16
August 5, 2011 ex parte application to change exchange location
17
September 27, 2011 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation
18
October 27, 2011 ex parte application and declaration of contempt2
19
November 17, 2011 ex parte application re contempt
20
January 3, 2012 additional contempt allegations
21
February 22, 2012 another contempt allegation
22
April 4, 2012 seeking a DV TRO against Respondent's son
23
May 23, 2012 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation
24
25
2 other ex parte applications
are
filed by Petitioner on November2, 7, 11 and30 related to the pending matters.
Pa e4
Case No.: FDI-11-773974
June 11, 2012 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation
Respondent points out that the issue of mother posing a risk of abducting, abusing and
2
3
neglecting Chaim and asserted allegations of fraud is first raised in December 2009 and is
rejected on January 10, 2010 by the Marin Superior Court. Moreover, the Marin Superior Court
holds an evidentiary hearing on August 9, 2010 to address child custody, visitation and
Respondent's request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order rejecting father's contentions
and granting mother the protection of a restraining order as well as setting up the custody and
visitation plan. As the record reflects, Petitioner continues to litigate this issue, using one tactic
after another.
On January 18, 2012, this Court on its own motion moved this case from a regular law
1o
11
and motion department and placed it in the Court's Case Resolution program that manages high
12
conflict cases by defining the issues, setting a plan to litigate the issues and requiring that all
13
requests for a hearing first be reviewed by the Judge overseeing the case. That did not stop
14
Petitioner's repeated filings but it did put a structure around the claims culminating in the
15
evidentiary hearings on May 27 -29 and the above hearing on August 23.
The decision in Bravo v. lsmaj (2002) 99 Cal.App.4m 211, 224 holds:
16
17
The primary goal of the vexatious litigant statutes is to curb misuse of the court system by
18
unmeritorious lawsuits. This objective is accomplished by requiring vexatious litigants to post
19
individuals acting in propria persona who repeatedly relitigate the same issues or file numerous
security to continue to pursue a pending matter or to obtain permission before filing a new
lawsuit. Only vexatious litigants are subject to such burdens. (Citation omitted.)
In Galin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4m 616, 639, the Court of Appeal holds that CCP
20
21
391(b)(3) is met when it is shown that the objective of a party's litigation tactics is to "grind
22
down the other side" or to "keep them from 'being able to move forward' in the litigation". That
23
is the showing that Respondent has made. Moreover as explained in the Statement of Decision
24
filed on July 27, 2012, Petitioner warns Respondent of that unless she agrees to his terms for
25
Pa e5
Case No.: FDI-11-773974
child custody and removal of the restraining order that Petitioner will grind her down. Petitioner
proceeds to do just that all the while stifling Respondent's ability to address her request to move.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
For the reasons stated, the Court finds Petitioner to be a vexatious litigant under CCP
3
39 1(b)(3). Presently under this Court's Case Resolution program, Petitioner is subject to having
his requests for relief reviewed by the Judicial Officer overseeing the case. However as
explained hereafter, all parties agree to a change of venue to Los Angeles County where both
parties will be residing on or before mid- October. For that reason, the Court finds that
Petitioner is subject to the pre filing requirements of CCP 391. 7 to be implemented by the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.
10
Attorneys' Fees
11
12
13
Petitioner requests attorneys' fees based o n the parties disparate income. Respondent
requests fees based on Petitioner's conduct in the course of the litigation which is reflected in the
Court's Statement of Decision.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The Court denies Petitioner's request. The record reflects that he has paid substantial
sums to counsel and yet has seen fit to engage in scorched earth litigation replete with
unmeritorious motions and requests for relief. Despite father's testimony that he only wanted
peace and made repeated offers to do so, the record is directly to the contrary. Petitioner's
definition of settlement is that he gets exactly what he wants and when that does not occur, the
record reflects a pattern of harassing litigation conduct consistent with his express statement in
father's email of July 10, 2011 cited in the Statement of Decision as Exhibit E.
21
22
23
24
25
Respondent also is subject to the same review as part of case management not as a consequence of Respondent's
litigation tactics.
Pa e
Case No.: FDlll-773974
The Court grants Respondent's request pursuant to Family Code 271. If ever a case
called for the invocation of this section, this is the case. Petitioner's multiple contempt motions
lacked merit, were filed to delay resolution of the important issue related to the move away and
then when that hearing is concluded, father announces that he does not have an objection and
immediately moves to Los Angeles. He then complains that the visits with his son are not
occurring forthwith in Los Angeles. Of course the visits not occurring there because it takes
time for mother to find employment and complete the move.
The Court finds that Petitioner is responsible for the paymnt of all fees incurred by Ms.
Penzotti ($18,996.96) in representing Respondent in defense of the contempt OSC's and related
10
issues as well as certain fees based on the work of Tara Flanagan ($5,200). Petitioner's counsel
11
cites work done not directly related to the defense of the contempt OSC's. However, Petitioner's
12
new counsel has not had the opportunity to observe what transpires during this period and how
13
all of Ms. Penzotti's work is directed to fending off the relentless attacks of Petitioner.
14
Change of Venue
Everyone agrees that by mid- October, mother will have relocated to Los Angeles. As a
15
16
consequence, venue shall be transferred to Los Angeles and a separate order shall issue on that
17
subject.
18
Discovery Limits
Subsequent to the issuance of the Statement of Decision, Petitioner causes a subpoena
19
20
duces tecum to be issued to Jodi Klugman-Robb, the therapist who testified at the hearing. At
21
the hearing on August 23, Petitioner states that he shall withdraw the subpoena. The issuance of
22
the subpoena is, without question, harassment of a trial witness and such conduct must cease.
23
Given Petitioner's conduct, he is hereby ordered to refrain from issuing subpoenas to any person
24
who testified at the hearing without seeking prior court approval to do so.
25
II
Pae 7
Case No.: FDI-11-773974
1
2
Summary of Findings
1. Respondent is entitled to receive child support in the sum of $563 per month to be paid
starting on the first date of each month starting
as
of October 1, 2012.
2. Petitioner is not entitled to spousal support.
3. Petitioner is declared to be a vexatious litigant and is subject to the pre-filing

requirements ofCCP 391(c).
6
7
4. Petitioner is obligated to pay attorneys fees in the amount of $24, 196.96 pursuant to
Family Code 271; $18,996.96 of that sum is to be paid to the Superior Court of San
Francisco.
10
5. Venue is to be transferred to Los Angeles County. The parties are to be equally

responsible for the payment of the fees associated with the transfer.
11
12
6. All pending discovery initiated by Petitioner subsequent to the Statement of Decision

filed July 27, 2012 is stayed pending further Order of the Court.
13
14
15
September 13, 2012

c
. Mahoney
e Superior Court
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

Pa e 8
Case No.: FDI-11-773974
Case Resolution Order # 8
CJBNS.ORG
ATTORNEY, AGENCY. OR PAATY WITHOUT ATTORNEY {NAMEAND AD0Ra5)
TELEPHONE NO
San Francisco
Superior Court of California
ATTORNEY FOR.
CASE NUMBER:
DISSOMASTER REPORT
2012, Monthly
In put Da ta
Father
Mother
Number of children
14/o
0%
Single
HH/MLA
2'
o/o time with NCP

Filing status
#Federal exemptions
+
Guideline (2012)
Cash Flow Analysis
Nets (a djusted)
3,330
Father
Net spendable income
2,767
5,285
0/o combined spendable
34.4%
65.6/o
1,000
1,279
3,228
4,940
Payment (cost)/benefit
(563)
563
Net spendable income
2,767
5,285
34.4%
65.6%
Presumed
-563
Other taxable income
Basic CS
(563)
TANF plus CS received
Add-ons
Support
Total taxes
Per Kid
New-spouse income
Child 1
(563)
Spousal
support
blocked
SS paid other marriage
Retirement contrib if ATI
Nee job-related exp.
Basic CS
Add-ons
Per Kid
Adj. to income (ATI)
(563)
Proposed, tactic 9
Required union dues
(563)
0
CS paid other relationship
Child 1
(563)
Spousal
support
blocked
249
Itemized deductions
Other medical expenses
Property tax expenses
Combined
Savings
No releases
Ded. interest expense
Charitable contribution
Miscellaneous itemized
Required union dues
Mandatory retirement
Hardship deduction
Other gdl. deductions
AMT info (IRS Form 6251)
Child support add-ons
(Rev. January 1, 2009)
cfir
DissoMater 20121
Total
Total taxes
#withholding
allowances
Net wage paycheck/mo
0
0
o/o combined spendable

0/o of saving over gdl
-563
SS paid other marriage
Health insurance
Net wage paycheck/mo
NSl change from gdl
Total
Presumed
#withholding
allowances
Proposed
Other nontaxable income
563
4,722
6,250
Self-employment income
(563)
8,052
Wages + salary
Payment (cost)/benefit
Mother
4,330
salary
Mother
Total
Self-employment income
Wages
Father
Guideline
O"!o
0%
1,000
1,279
3,228
4,940
(563)
0
Default Case Settings
DissoMaster Report (Monthly)

San Francisco, Superior Court of California
Page 1 ofl
911312012 2:54 PM

Rifkin VL Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rifkin VL Order

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rifkin VL Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the court's ruling regarding child support?

What was the court's ruling regarding child support?

What was the court's ruling regarding spousal support?

What was the court's ruling regarding spousal support?

I

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

County of San Francisco

Department No. 405

CASE RESOLUTION ORDER# 8

Case No.: FDI-111-773974

subsequent submissions, the Court issues the following Order.

Case Resolution Order#

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

approximately that sum.

care insurance costs of $249 and $50 of uninsured medical costs.

the source of funds he receives from family and others.

Case Resolution Order# 8

monthly child support as of October 1, 2012 in the amount of$563 to mother.

Motion to Find Petitioner to Be a Vexatious Litigant

delay." In support of the motion, Respondent offers the following facts:

A Temporary Restraining Order is entered against Petitioner on or about December 22,

parties' child, Chaim, born September 2, 2008.

mother with fraud.

represented litigant on April 22, 2010.

marriage and again accusing mother of fraud.

Case Resolution Order#

abduct, abuse and neglect Chaim as well

her other two children.

Court and rejected.

The same allegations are made by Petitioner on the dates indicated -

March 10, 2011 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation that is denied

April 13, 2011 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation that is denied

July 7, 2011 OSC to modify custody/visitation

July 28, 2011 ex parte request to modify custody/visitation that is denied

August 1, 2011 in filings seeking to hold Respondent in contempt

August 5, 2011 ex parte application to change exchange location

September 27, 2011 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation

October 27, 2011 ex parte application and declaration of contempt2

November 17, 2011 ex parte application re contempt

January 3, 2012 additional contempt allegations

February 22, 2012 another contempt allegation

April 4, 2012 seeking a DV TRO against Respondent's son

May 23, 2012 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation

2 other ex parte applications

filed by Petitioner on November2, 7, 11 and30 related to the pending matters.

Case Resolution Order# 8

June 11, 2012 ex parte application to modify custody/visitation

unmeritorious lawsuits. This objective is accomplished by requiring vexatious litigants to post

Case Resolution Order# 8

Case No.: FDlll-773974

Case Resolution Order# 8

time for mother to find employment and complete the move.

Case Resolution Order# 8

2. Petitioner is not entitled to spousal support.

3. Petitioner is declared to be a vexatious litigant and is subject to the pre-filing

5. Venue is to be transferred to Los Angeles County. The parties are to be equally

6. All pending discovery initiated by Petitioner subsequent to the Statement of Decision

September 13, 2012

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

Case Resolution Order # 8