Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCV07197, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07197    Hearing Date: October 17, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Renato Obando, pro per, sues Defendants City of Los Angeles, Detective Mario Mojarro, Detective Frank Bolan, and Judge Robert C. Vanderet pursuant to a March 21, 2024, Complaint alleging a cause of action under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. The Complaint arises from allegations that Bolan used excessive force against Obando in 1981 which caused Obando to falsely confess to murder. Obando is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction.

B. Motion Before the Court

Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant motion on September 9, 2024.

Obando filed an opposition to the motion on September 24, 2024.

On October 2, Defendant City of Los Angeles replied.

II. Motion

A. Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendant City of Los Angeles requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

1. Exhibit 2 - a printout from the 2nd Appellate District Court of Appeal’s website listing the appeals filed by Plaintiff Renato Obando.

2. Exhibit 3 - the court’s docket from In re Renato Obando on Habeas Corpus, Court of Appeal Case No. B276271.

3. Exhibit 4 - the Ninth Circuit’s Order in Obando v. White, 22 Fed.Appx. 836, USDC Case No. CV94-06161 HLH, affirming dismissal of the Plaintiff’s fourth Habeas Corpus Petition as being abusive of process.

4. Exhibit 5 - the Central District Court’s docket from the 2016 case entitled, Obando v. Wilkinson, USDC Case No. CV16-05988 GHK (SKx).

5. Exhibit 6 - the Central District Court’s order dismissing the case entitled Obando v. Wilkinson, 2016 WL 7049183, USDC Case No. CV16-05988 GHK (SKx).

6. Exhibit 7 - the Ninth Circuit’s order dismissing the appeal in the case entitled Obando v. Wilkinson, 2017 WL 6759314, USDC Case No. CV16-05988 GHK (SKx) as being frivolous.

7. Exhibit 8 - the court’s docket in the appeal from In re Renato Obando on Habeas Corpus, Court of Appeal Case No. B286113.

8. Exhibit 9 - the court’s docket from the appeal In re Renato Obando on Habeas Corpus, Court of Appeal Case No. B293546.

9. Exhibit 10 - the LASC’s docket in Obando v. Swain, LASC Case No. 19STCV11198.

10. Exhibit 11 - the complaint filed in Obando v. Swain, LASC Case No. 19STCV11198.

11. Exhibit 12 - the court’s docket from the appeal in Obando v. Swain, Court of Appeal Case No. B303382.

12. Exhibit 13 - the court’s docket from the second appeal in Obando v. Swain, Court of Appeal Case No. B304464.

13. Exhibit 14 - the court’s docket from the appeal in The People v. Obando “Serrano”, Court of Appeal Case No. B306400.

14. Exhibit 15 - the court’s docket from the appeal in In re Renato Obando on Habeas Corpus, Court of Appeal Case No. B310279.

15. Exhibit 16 - the court’s docket from the appeal in Obando v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Court of Appeal Case No. B311572.

16. Exhibit 17 - the LASC’s docket in Obando v. Vanderet, et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV27456.

17. Exhibit 18 - the complaint filed in Obando v. Vanderet, et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV27456.

18. Exhibit 19 - the court’s docket from the appeal in Obando v. Vanderet, et al., Court of Appeal Case No. B328118.

19. Exhibit 20 - the court’s docket from the second appeal in Obando v. Vanderet, Court of Appeal Case No. B331095.

20. Exhibit 21 - the court’s docket and disposition from the appeal in In re Renato Obando on Habeas Corpus, Court of Appeal Case No. B335117.

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), the Court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States”.

The court however may not take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of the documents. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.) Documents are only judicially noticeable to show their existence and what orders were made such that the truth of the facts and findings within the documents are not judicially noticeable. (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 885.) 

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED, as to Exhibits 2 through 21 [Exhibit 1 is a “chart of litigations” not sought to be admitted and not considered by the Court].

B. Legal Standard

¿“The vexatious litigant statutes (§§ 391–391.7) are designed to curb misuse of the court system by those persistent and obsessive litigants who, repeatedly litigating the same issues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of the court system and other litigants.” (Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1169.) 

A vexatious litigant is a person who does any of the following:¿  

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) 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.  

(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

(4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence. 

(5) After being restrained pursuant to a restraining order issued after a hearing pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 6300) of Part 4 of Division 10 of the Family Code, and while the restraining order is still in place, they commenced, prosecuted, or maintained one or more litigations against a person protected by the restraining order in this or any other court or jurisdiction that are determined to be meritless and caused the person protected by the order to be harassed or intimidated. 

(Code Civ. Proc. § 391, subds. (b)-(b)(4).)¿¿ 

“[T]he court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397.1, subd. (a).) 

“The presiding justice or presiding judge of a court may designate a justice or judge of the same court to act on his or her behalf in exercising the authority and responsibilities provided under subdivisions (a) to (c) [of section 397.1], inclusive.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397.1, subd. (e).) 

Section 391.1 provides that a motion for order to furnish security a defendant must show “the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that he or she will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.1, subd. (a).) 

Section 391.7, subdivision (a) provides that “[i]n addition to any other relief provided in this title, the court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, 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.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 397.7, subd. (a).) 

C. Analysis

The City of Los Angeles moves for (1) an order declaring Plaintiff Renato Obando a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b), (2) requiring Obando to post statutorily required security, or dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391.1(a), and (3) issuing a prefiling order prohibiting Obando from filing any new litigation in California state courts in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Judge of the court in which the litigation is proposed to be filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391.7.

First, the City of Los Angeles contends that Obando is a vexatious litigant. Obando has filed, pro per, 12 other litigations in the last 7 years, including lawsuits and petitions for habeas corpus in the Superior Court, Central District of California, California Court of Appeal, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, not including the current case, most of which arise from his 1981 arrest and subsequent conviction, which were all adversely determined against him. (Mot. p. 3:6-8; RJN Exs. 3-21.) Obando also filed two cases in 2016 which were terminated in 2017 and 2018. (Mot. p. 3:10-11.)

Obando has filed multiple cases in both state and federal court, and subsequent appeals against the same defendants, including the City of Los Angeles and Frank Bolan. (Mot. pp. 3:16-4:8.) Both the California Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have dismissed the appeals as frivolous and for failure to prosecute. (Mot. pp. 3:19-20, 3:24-28.) Obando has similarly filed numerous Habeas Petitions between 1989 and 2024 related to his criminal conviction which have been adversely determined against him. (Mot. p. 4:1-8.) Further, the City of Los Angeles contends that the California Court of Appeal, the United States District Court, and the Ninth Circuit have all previously recognized Obando’s vexatious nature. (Mot. p. 5:1-10; RJN Exs. 4-7.)

Second, the City of Los Angeles argues that there is no probability of success on this matter and thus, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1 subdivision (a), Obando should be ordered to post a security. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 391.1 subd. (a).) The City of Los Angeles asserts that Obando has no reasonable probability of prevailing in this case because it is based on the same grounds as his previously dismissed complaints. (Complaint, pp. 6-10, Section I, ¶¶ 1-63.) The City of Los Angeles contends that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar the instant Complaint as well as the statute of limitations. (Mot. p. 5:26-27.)

In opposition, Obando argues that he should not be declared a vexatious litigant because his claim of excessive force has never been decided on the merits.

“When considering a motion to declare a litigant vexatious, the court must weigh the evidence to decide whether the litigant is vexatious based on the statutory criteria and whether the litigant has a reasonable probability of prevailing.” (Goodrich v. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1265). Here, under CCP § 391 subdivision (b)(2), an individual is considered a vexatious litigant if the litigant, acting in propria persona, attempts to relitigate either the “the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) 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.”

Obando has filed twelve separate actions, all based on the issues related to his arrest and subsequent criminal conviction. The cases have ended with appeals court affirming the lower courts dismissals, the Supreme Court has denied review. Obando is attempting to relitigate the issues that multiple trial courts and Courts of Appeal have determined as final, as his own complaint acknowledges. (Complaint, pp. 6-10.)

Further, under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1, a plaintiff is required to furnish a security if the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and there is no “reasonable probability that he or she will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” Here, the same issues are being relitigated and there is no probability that the Obando will succeed. Multiple prior courts have dismissed the matter, with the Court of Appeal affirming such actions.

Accordingly, the Motion to Declare a Vexatious Litigant is GRANTED.    

III. Conclusion

Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Motion to Declare a Vexatious Litigant and Motion for Order Requiring Security is GRANTED.   

Renato Obando is hereby ordered to post a $5,000.000 security, or dismiss this action with prejudice.

Renato Obando is hereby prohibited from filing any new litigation in a California state courts in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Judge of the court in which the litigation is proposed to be filed.