VERIFIED STATEMENT FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE BROWN

Afsaneh Mobasser, In Pro Per
115 North Doheny Drive #318
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Tel***********


Defendant, Afsaneh Mobasser In Pro Per


SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – WEST DISTRICT, BEVERLY HILLS



WOLF & ASSOCIATES,
Plaintiff,

vs.


AFSANEH MOBASSER and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 12U00223

DEPT.: 6
JUDGE: Hon. Leslie E. Brown

DEFENDANT AFSANEH MOBASSER’S VERIFIED STATEMENT FOR DISQUALIFICATION



California Code of Civil Procedure ß170.3(c)(1)








Date Action Filed: 04/04/2012

TO HONORABLE LESLIE E. BROWN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT:
I, AFSANEH MOBASSER, verify:
1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled unlawful detainer action filed in 2012, and was a defendant in a prior unlawful detainer action filed in 2011 by my landlord, entitled Wolf v. Mobasser (LASC No. 11U00738). Both actions were assigned to Hon. Leslie E. Brown, who has made all rulings and decisions in both proceedings, except when Hon. Elden S. Fox granted me relief from forfeiture of my lease in the first case, after Judge Brown rendered judgment for possession in favor of Plaintiff landlord.
2. In this pending action, after Judge Brown denied me a jury trial despite my attorney’s admission he made a mistake by not posting fees in time, the court decided that judgment should be rendered in favor of plaintiff landlord to take possession of my rent-stabilized apartment that has been my home for the past seventeen years, despite the fact that I had always paid my rent, but based on a claim that I overwatered plants on my balcony and that I did not comply with a 3-day notice to “cure” by removing all of the plants (rather than limiting watering) and despite the fact that plants on tenants’ balconies are common in the building.
3. The basis of my claim for disqualification are statements made by Judge Brown in open court prior to trial in the first case, when both my attorney Mr. Wayne M. Abb and I were present, that are reflected in the accompanying certified reporter’s transcript. Judge Brown made express statements of his own “very strong view” that once a tenant loses an unlawful detainer case ‘there is nothing he can do, no matter the length of time living there, even if there are medical reasons given’ for allowing the tenant to stay. (See Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal filed January 4, 2013, by Antoinette R. Farrior, CSR No.11862, of proceedins held November 16, 2011, on page 5, lines 15-24):

“THE COURT: …AND WE’VE HAD CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LONG TERM TENANTS AND THEY’VE ENDED UP LOSING THE CASE, AND THEY SIT THERE AND THEY CRY, AND THEY TELL ME HOW LONG THEY’VE LIVED THERE. THEY TELL ME ABOUT THEIR POOR STATE OF HEALTH AND ALL THAT. I CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. I CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT… I AM EXPRESSING A VERY STRONG VIEW THAT ONCE IT’S DONE IT’S DONE AND I CAN’T UNDO IT.”

4. This statement demonstrates that Judge Brown has developed and maintained such a closed mind regarding unsuccessful unlawful detainer tenants that, even for very long term residents who describe their poor state of health, “I can’t do anything about that.” And that “once it’s done [the tenancy] it’s [forever] done and I can’t undo it [no matter what the law says and what the factual circumstances may be].”
5. In fact, what Judge Brown said is simply untrue. Section 1179 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly describes that in cases of “hardship” (even omitting descriptive words such as “extreme” or “severe”) relief from forfeiture is a remedy that is available to the Court. The law says even though a tenancy under a lease has has been terminated by forfeiture, under certain circumstances, the Court is empowered to reinstate the lease. So the court in fact, by law, could actually and really “do something about that” but Judge Brown, by his own admission, has decided that he would not, which reflects either that he is not familiar with the law, or, he is knowledgeable but refuses, no matter what the factual presentation may be regarding the hardship, he will not do anything about it no matter what – no matter length of tenancy, medical conditions that render eviction either physically and/or psychologically harmful, or for any other conceivable reason. That mentality shows he simply refuses to recognize or follow existing law in post judgment unlawful detainer proceedings where the “tenant ended up losing the case.” That is exactly my circumstance now.
6. My understanding of any judge’s duty with regard to a petition for relief from forfeiture is to exercise his or her discretion by considering the factual circumstances presented by any unsuccessful tenant, and to weigh the hardship to that particular tenant to determine if it would be a serious hardship (other than just the expense and inconvenience of having to move) balanced against the ability of the landlord to be placed in a position of not being permanently harmed if relief from forfeiture was granted. Unfortunately, Judge Brown has revealed his determination to never exercise his discretion because he stated he could never do anything for a tenant who has “ended up losing the case.”
7. Judge Brown’s expressly stated position clearly amounts to an advance abuse of discretion by refusing to exercise discretion, no matter what the facts might be to support a finding of hardship. As such, it demonstrates bias and prejudice against all tenants who are adjudged liable of unlawful detainer, and now, as one of those tenants, his bias and prejudice is against me personally, prior to any presentations for relief. It is a statement that the Court, in essence, will not do its duty to seriously consider any such request, ever. He added that he was expressing his own “very strong view” that “once it’s done it’s done and I can’t undo it” no matter what. The fact that Judge Brown himself cited a lengthy tenancy and medical condition as insufficient to support relief in any and every case, that state of mind disqualifies Judge Brown.
8. This statement is presented at the earliest practicable opportunity in this proceeding because not until mid-December did the Court file its Statement of Decision for judgment for Plaintiff, and I was only able to obtain the transcript of Judge Brown’s disqualifying statement for filing January 4, 2013. After receiving a copy of the Court’s Statement of Decision, I was only then placed in the position of considering what post-judgment relief I am entitled to request, including relief from forfeiture, motion for new trial and stay of enforcement pending appeal.
9. A clear example of the principle of what a qualified Judge does when asked to grant relief from forfeiture to a losing tenant is what occurred in December, 2012, when I filed a petition requesting that relief that was ultimately considered by Judge Fox after Judge Brown found me liable for unlawful detainer in the prior case. My petition was accompanied by declarations from medical providers who described the irreparable harm they believed I would suffer if I were evicted after living in my home for sixteen (16) years, and the injuries and psychological damages I suffered after having been hit by a truck while I was walking across the street near my home. Judge Fox did not say, “I can’t do anything for you even after this many years and your medical condition.” Instead, Judge Fox reviewed the facts and circumstances and determined that I had the ability to pay the rent and granted relief conditioned upon forthwith payment of the rents that the landlord had refused to accept after they filed their action. Judge Fox exercised his discretion, found sufficient factual evidence of extreme hardship and recognized he had the judicial power based upon the language and authority of section 1179 granted to him by the legislature. On the contrary, Judge Brown has pronounced himself as not even having such discretion or authority and, by doing so, has disqualified himself from even being relied upon to impartially consider such a request.
10. Judge Brown’s statement that the law does not permit him to do anything to give relief to a losing tenant did not become a basis for disqualification in this case until the proposed judgment recently became a reality, so the fact of his closed-mindedness and either unfamiliarity with, or outright refusal to consider, the law that potentially provides post-judgment relief, only came to be an issue in mid-December when the Statement of Decision was filed. Judgment has not yet been entered.
11. Not only does Judge Brown’s false claim that “I can’t do anything [after judgment against a tenant]” demonstrate bias and prejudice affecting his ability to impartially decide a tenant’s petition for relief from forfeiture (having himself cited length of tenancy and medical conditions as examples of non-legitimate reasons) Judge Brown has demonstrated that any motion for new trial or request for stay of execution are also not available to losing tenants, like myself, no matter what is presented. That attitude and closed mindedness is clearly contrary to what the law guarantees as due process, Constitutionally protected, for any civil litigant, and especially, with respect to requests for a stay of enforcement pending appeal, there is the specific balancing formula set forth in section 1176(a) that makes it mandatory to grant a stay of eviction pending appeal in certain circumstances:


“Stay of judgment shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the nonmoving party will not be irreparably injured by its issuance.” (Emphasis added.)

12. Judge Brown’s stated principle that ‘once a tenant loses, I cannot do anything for the tenant’ and ‘once it’s done it can never, ever be undone’ demonstrates that he would also be as closed-minded about a stay as he would be about relief from forfeiture, because he used examples of length of tenancy and medical conditions as never qualifying for simple ‘hardship’ (relief forfeiture) much less ‘extreme hardship’ (stay pending appeal). As such, Judge Brown has demonstrated with his own words the basis for his disqualification, which reflects he has developed an absolutely closed state of mind on the specific issues of hardship in post judgment unlawful detainer settings, or any other potential relief (e.g., a new trial) when perhaps, new evidence is discovered that was withheld by the landlord that disproves the landlord’s claim. The law appears to allow what was done to in fact be undone, if specific factual circumstances can be shown. Yet Judge Brown stated otherwise as if the law is as he wanted and wished it to be, rather than as it actually is.
13. Respectfully, based on Judge Brown’s statement of his own policy in this and all similar unlawful detainer matters at this stage in the case, he should consent to another judicial officer hearing the forthcoming post-trial proceedings.
I have read the foregoing Statement for Disqualification and verify its contents as true, and of my own personal knowledge as to the statements made that I myself heard and were transcribed. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this ___ day of January 2013, in Los Angeles County, California.


_______________________________
Afsaneh Mobasser