Nada Violet Lahoud vs Justin Patton Mozart

Case Number

24CV00278

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 01/12/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Debtor's Examination; Motion: Vacate Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Nada Violet Lahoud v. Justin Patton Mozart                   

Case No. 24CV00278

Hearing Date: January 12, 2026                                                         

HEARING:              Motion to Vacate Judgment

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Nada Violet Lahoud: Self Represented

                                    For Defendant Justin Patton Mozart: Trevor D. Large, Natalie N. Mutz, Fauver Large Archbald & Spray LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of plaintiff to vacate judgment is denied.

Background: 

On January 18, 2024, plaintiff Nada Violet Lahoud (Plaintiff), using the fictitious name “Jane Doe”, filed a complaint against defendant Justin Patton Mozart (Mozart), alleging five causes of action: (1) false imprisonment – El Encanto; (2) sexual battery (Civ. Code, § 1708.5) – El Encanto; (3) sexual battery (Civ. Code, § 1708.5) – Hilton Hotel; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) gender violence – Civil Code section 52.4. The causes of action alleged in the complaint arise from sexual assaults which Plaintiff alleges occurred at the El Encanto Hotel and the Hilton Barbara Beachfront Resort in Santa Barbara, California, on, respectively, August 12 and August 16, 2022. (Compl., ¶¶ 21, 27, 29, 33-37, 39-40.)

On June 3, 2024, the court, among other things, overruled the demurrer of Mozart to the complaint.

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order granting leave to file under seal an amendment to the complaint disclosing Plaintiff’s actual identity, and permitting Plaintiff to proceed in this litigation under a pseudonym. On July 29, the court entered an order adopting its tentative ruling denying that motion, and ordering Plaintiff to, no later than August 12, 2024, file and serve an amended complaint using her true legal name and which includes no other modifications.

On August 12, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the same five causes of action against Mozart described above. The amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, includes the same allegations appearing in the original complaint.

Court records relevant to the present proceeding reflect that, between May 24 and October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed nine discovery motions. On October 31, Mozart filed an ex parte application for a protective order or, alternatively, to appoint a discovery referee, which was made on the grounds that Plaintiff had filed those motions, which Mozart characterized as “excessive”, and had purportedly engaged in discovery abuses, among other things. Plaintiff opposed the ex parte application.

On November 1, after a hearing, the court appointed R.A. Carrington as the discovery referee for all current and future discovery matters, and ordered all then pending discovery hearings off calendar to be heard by the discovery referee at a future date. (See Nov. 1 & Nov. 21 orders.)

Mozart filed an answer to the amended complaint on December 23, 2024, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

On February 21, 2025, Mozart filed a motion (the Sanctions Motion) for an order issuing terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, striking the amended complaint, and dismissing the action with prejudice. That motion was made on the grounds that Plaintiff had defied the discovery referee’s recommendations adopted as orders of this court by failing to comply with discovery obligations including the payment of monetary sanctions, and that Plaintiff has obstructed or misused the litigation process, as further set forth in the motion and the supporting declaration of Mozart’s counsel, Trevor D. Large (Large). Court records reflect that Plaintiff did not file an opposition to that motion.

On March 12, the discovery referee filed his recommendation (the Recommendation), noting that Plaintiff’s opposition to the Sanctions Motion was due on March 6 and had not been received by the referee, and recommending that the court grant the Sanctions Motion for all reasons set forth in the Recommendation. Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Recommendation.

On March 13, Plaintiff separately filed ten amendments to the amended complaint, substituting the discovery referee, Large, and other individuals for the defendants designated in the amended complaint as Does 2 through 11.

 

On March 21, the court entered an order adopting the Recommendation, issuing terminating sanctions, striking the amended complaint in its entirety, and dismissing the case in its entirety, with prejudice. Additionally, the court ordered that monetary sanctions be imposed against Plaintiff in favor of Mozart, and found that Plaintiff has willfully failed to prosecute her claims against all defendants and, in doing so, violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct. (Mar. 21, 2025, Order).

On June 6, the court entered judgment (the Judgment) in favor of Mozart and against Plaintiff in the amount of $64,373.18.

On September 29, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Judgment, which is made on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect pursuant to subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (Notice at p. 1, ll. 3-8.) In support of the present motion, Plaintiff submits a copy of Plaintiff’s proposed opposition to the Sanctions Motion and the Recommendation. (Lahoud Dec., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1-2.)

The motion is opposed by Mozart.

Analysis:

Subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party’s legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Though “[t]he court has ‘wide discretion’ to grant relief under this statute... ” (Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1111), the courts “ ‘ “do not act as guardians for incompetent parties or parties who are grossly careless as to their own affairs. There must be rules and regulations by which rights are determined and under which judgments become final....” ’ ” (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1415.)

As a threshold matter, Mozart contends in his opposition that Plaintiff did not serve the motion on Mozart’s counsel and did not file a proof of service. For this reason, Mozart contends, the court should decline to hear, and deny, the motion for lack of proper notice.

“It is well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of the motion. [Citation.] This rule applies even when no notice was given at all.” (Tate v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 925, 930.) The opposition filed by Mozart opposes Plaintiff’s motion on its merits. (Opp. at pp. 6-9.) For this and all further reasons noted above, Mozart has waived any defects in the notice of the present motion.

To support the motion, Plaintiff contends that she became ill after a car accident on September 9, 2025, that Plaintiff received in-patient treatment at a hospital for a 25-day period from May 27 through June 21, 2025; that Mozart’s counsel failed to notify Plaintiff that the Terminating Motion had been taken off the court’s calendar to be adjudicated by the discovery referee; and that Mozart served Plaintiff with the Terminating Motion and Recommendation by electronic mail to an email address that was unreliable and intermittently accessible to Plaintiff and contrary to Plaintiff’s express request to mail serve all notices and court filings.

The motion fails to explain, with reasoned argument or analysis, why the car accident, battery and assault, termination of a rental agreement, “medical break”, technical issues, physical and mental “torture”, hospitalization, car repairs, and other matters described in the motion and Plaintiff’s declaration, many of which occurred either prior to the filing of the Sanctions Motion or after entry of the Judgment, prevented Plaintiff from preparing and submitting any opposition to the Sanctions Motion.

By way of example, though Plaintiff contends the events or illnesses described in Plaintiff’s declaration prevented her from filing an opposition to the Sanctions Motion, court records reflect that Plaintiff prepared and filed the amendments to the complaint described above on March 13 notwithstanding these events. Moreover, the Recommendation adopted by the court includes a description of Plaintiff’s communications before, at the time, and after the Sanctions Motion was filed, and notes that Plaintiff stated in those communications that she would “’not be filing anymore [sic] court documents’” until the discovery referee was removed and the case reassigned, and did not plan to file an opposition to the Terminating Motion. (Mar. 12, 2025, Disc. Referee Recommendation at pp. 4-5 & 13; see also Large Decl., Exh. C.) Plaintiff does not dispute that she made this statement, which indicates that Plaintiff’s failure to file any opposition to the Sanctions Motion was not due to excusable neglect, or any surprise, mistake, or inadvertence on Plaintiff’s part, and was instead due to Plaintiff electing not to participate in further proceedings including those conducted by the discovery referee.

An email which Plaintiff transmitted to the discovery referee on February 23, 2025, and attached to the Large declaration is ostensibly the email referenced in the Recommendation and described above. (Large Decl., Exh. C.) It appears to the court that Plaintiff sent that email in response to a February 22 electronic communication by the discovery referee notifying the parties that Plaintiff’s opposition to the Sanctions Motion must be electronically served by 5 p.m. on March 6, with Mozart’s reply to be electronically served by 5 p.m. on March 12. In addition, the present motion was electronically filed by Plaintiff, and provides Plaintiff’s electronic address. (See Motion at pdf p. 1.) For these reasons, the available information and evidence suggests that Plaintiff manifested affirmative consent to service by electronic means in this action by providing Plaintiff’s electronic address, which court records reflect also appears in other documents electronically filed with this court by Plaintiff. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(1)-(3).)

The transcript of the March 24, 2025, case management conference attached to the Large declaration also shows that Plaintiff appeared at that conference and did not raise any objection to the court’s ruling on the Sanctions Motion based on improper or noncompliant service. (Large Decl., Exh. L.)

Plaintiff also offers no evidence or information to show that she was unaware that the court appointed a discovery referee in this action for all future discovery matters. The court has no record showing that Plaintiff objected to the appointment of the discovery referee on any of the grounds enumerated in Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

In addition, Plaintiff had the right to, but did not, file an objection to the Recommendation “within 10 days after the referee serves and files the report, or within another time as the court may direct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 643, subd. (c).) Instead, Plaintiff indicated that she would not file any further documents until the discovery referee was removed. (Large Decl., Exh. C.) Considering that Plaintiff did not oppose the Sanctions Motion or object to the Recommendation based on any purportedly improper service of that motion, and instead effectively declined to participate in further proceedings, it would appear that, for all reasons discussed above, Plaintiff waived any objection to the Sanctions Motion based on any defect in service. (Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Assn. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1300, 1310, fn. 6.)

The remaining grounds asserted in the motion do not persuade the court that, under the totality of the circumstances present here, sufficient grounds exist to vacate the Judgment based on any mistake, surprise, inadvertence, or excusable neglect by Plaintiff. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will deny the motion.