Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: BC410835, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC410835    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 52

(1) Motion Re: Fee Waiver Fraud; (2) Motion to Expand Injunction

(1) Defendants Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc.’s Motion re: Fee Waiver Fraud and Request for OSC

            Defendants Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc. ask the court to set an order to show cause regarding “fee waiver fraud” by plaintiff Michael Goland.  Courts may set a hearing to review a party’s fee waiver upon obtaining information that the party “is not entitled to a fee waiver, or that [his] financial condition has changed so that he or she is no longer eligible.”  (Gov. Code, § 68636(b).)  Courts may also set a hearing to review a party’s fee waiver upon obtaining “information suggesting that a litigant whose fees and costs were initially waived is obtaining court services in bad faith, or for an improper purpose such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the costs of litigation.”  (Gov. Code, § 68636(f).)

Defendants present insufficient evidence of those circumstances.  Even assuming their evidence constitutes such information, it is stale and no longer relevant.  Their evidence concerns events no later than 2015.  (Lewis Decl., Exs. A, B.)   

(2) Defendants Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc.’s Motion to Expand the Injunction Imposed by the Court’s October 30, 2009 Pre-Filing Order

            Defendants Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc. move the court to expand the pre-filing order against plaintiff Michael Goland as a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. 

            Defendants provide no authority permitting the relief they seek.  Though the statutory scheme permits finding someone to be a vexatious litigant for “maintaining” frivolous proceedings (CCP § 391; In re R.H. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 678, 692), it does not permit an order enjoining them from maintaining a proceeding already filed.  Moreover, defendants seek an order enjoining Goland from participating in an action in another court.  Assuming such an order is permitted, only the court in that action could properly issue such an order.

            Defendants also move to expand the prefiling order to apply to people other than Michael Goland, the person determined to be a vexatious litigant.  They again provide no authority for doing so.  Furthermore, they seek such an order without giving the people who would be enjoined notice of or an opportunity to respond to this motion.

Finally, defendants move the court to hold Goland in contempt for violating court orders.  They present insufficient evidence for the court to issue an order to show cause regarding contempt.

Disposition

            Defendants Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc.’s motion re: fee waiver fraud is denied.  Defendants Susan Marlowe and Dog at Home, Inc.’s motion to expand injunction is denied.