Bahman-Vincent v. Creative Growth Art Center, Inc.

Background

Defendant Ginger Shulick Porcella filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on May 6, 2025. Plaintiff Haideh Bahman-Vincent’s opposition was due May 20, 2025. After Plaintiff did not file an opposition, the court issued a May 22 order requiring her to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition by May 27 and to explain why the filing was late. The court noted that this was the second time Plaintiff had failed to file a timely opposition and that she had not fully answered an earlier order requiring an explanation for another late opposition.

Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 26. The court could not determine whether it responded to Porcella’s motion, Creative Growth Art Center, Inc.’s separately filed motion, or both. The filing included Plaintiff’s declaration and 46 exhibits totaling more than 270 pages.

Court’s Rulings on the Filing

The court struck Plaintiff’s declaration and exhibits. It found that substantial portions of the declaration stated improper legal conclusions, including assertions about harassment, discrimination, constructive termination, and whether conduct was privileged. The exhibits were not attached to a declaration authenticating them or to a request for judicial notice explaining why the court could consider them.

The court also explained that a motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the legal sufficiency of the claims based on the pleadings. The court generally cannot consider evidence outside the pleadings unless it converts the motion into a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). The court further criticized the opposition for failing to identify specific complaint paragraphs or exhibits supporting the claimed factual disputes.

The court permitted Plaintiff one final opportunity to file an opposition to the motions for judgment on the pleadings. The new opposition had to state whether it addressed one or both motions, focus on why the pleadings were legally sufficient, cite the specific complaint paragraphs supporting each claim, and avoid numbering each paragraph as though the opposition were a declaration. The court set June 4, 2025, as the deadline for Plaintiff’s filing and June 11, 2025, as the deadline for Defendants’ reply if Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Order to Show Cause Regarding Counsel

The court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel, David Michael Syme, to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not take a specified action—by June 4, 2025. The possible actions were a personal $1,000 sanction and referral to the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.

The court identified several alleged failures by counsel: not explaining two late oppositions as required by prior orders, not providing a required chambers copy of an untimely opposition, filing a motion to quash after being directed to address discovery disputes through a joint discovery letter, and submitting what appeared to be only one page of that letter as an exhibit. Counsel was ordered to explain the repeated late filings and failures to comply, provide required chambers copies, and file a declaration under penalty of perjury addressing compliance with the Civil Local Rules and the court’s standing order.

The court warned that failure to complete these requirements would result in the motions for judgment on the pleadings being granted as unopposed, sanctions, and/or referral to the Standing Committee. The order did not itself decide either motion for judgment on the pleadings.