Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 19STCP02038, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 19STCP02038    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Order

This action was dismissed with prejudice on December 6, 2023. (Minute Order, December 6, 2023.)

In the December 20203 Order, the Court found this to be a sham action, initiated and/or maintained without proper basis or procedure; that it had not been properly served on all interested parties; and that it should be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 583.150 and the inherent authority of the Court to dismiss cases that are fraudulent or vexatious. (Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 759-760 [“because courts should only hear actual disputes, and should prevent harassment of defendants, California courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss cases that are fraudulent or ‘vexatious’”].)

Additionally, on June 27, 2024, the Court ordered that no further writs be issued in this action. (Minute Order, June 27, 2024.)

Plaintiff’s assignee Michael Lambert filed this “motion for order deeming admitted truth of facts and genuineness of documents and imposing monetary sanctions and to vacate invalid orders/direct levying officer to execute writ” on August 13, 2024. The motion purports to relate to requests for admissions (Mot., p. 3); however, as noted above, the action has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, there is no basis for any discovery in this case. This Court can and will not take any further action in this matter, at least not until and unless the two orders above (of December 6, 2023 and June 27, 2024) are addressed.

Plaintiff’s assignee Michael Lambert is further informed that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, the Court on its own motion or the motion of any party, may “enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.” A “vexatious litigant” is defined as a person who, after litigation has been finally determined against the person, “repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, . . . the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.” (Code Civ. Proc., ¶ 391 subd. (b).)

Should Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s assignee continue to file repeated meritless motions in this case, which has already been dismissed, this Court may set an Order to Show Cause why Michael Lambert should not be declared a vexatious litigant under the above noted statute.