Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: BC703900, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Relevant here, this was an action arising out of a dispute over a real estate development project. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs 618 Van Ness, LLC (“618”) and Eugene Oak (“Eugene”) filed their Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) for (1) Quiet Title; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Fraud; (4) Malpractice; and (5)-(6) Declaratory Relief against Defendants BBC Van Ness, LLC (“BBC”); Federal Street Holdings, LLC (“Federal”); Winter; Van Ness Partners I, LLC (“Partners”); Bixby Bridge Fund, LLC (“Bixby”); RN Management, LLC (“RN”); Jane Oak (“Jane”); Jane Oak and Associates, APC (“Associates”); Dong Choi (“Choi”); and DOES 1-25.[1] The first and third causes of action are asserted against Defendants BBC, Winter, Federal, Partners, Bixby, and RN, only. The second and sixth causes of action are asserted against Defendant Choi, only. The fourth cause of action is asserted against Defendants Jane and Associates, only. The fifth cause of action is asserted against all Defendants except Defendant Choi.

On June 22, 2020, this court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants BBC, Winter, Federal, Partners, and RN on the 4AC. On August 4, 2020, this court entered judgment in favor of Defendants BBC, Winter, Federal, Partners, and RN on the 4AC. On September 23, 2020, this court ordered the dismissal of Defendants Jane and Associates, pursuant to a settlement agreement.

After the June 2020 order granting summary judgment, Plaintiff filed 17 motions and reserved 36 more seeking to reverse the court’s ruling. Plaintiff also filed many ex parte applications seeking the same relief. The Court resorted to periodically vacating each of Plaintiff’s reservations to prevent Plaintiff from occupying every reservation spot available on the calendar for months.

On December 7, 2020, this court revoked Plaintiff Eugene’s fee waiver. On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff Eugene appeared personally before the court on an ex parte basis and made an oral request to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint without prejudice. (Minute Order of December 15, 2020). The court granted this motion. On December 18, 2020, the court clarified that the result of this action was a dismissal without prejudice as to Defendants Choi and Bixby – judgment had already been entered in favor of Defendants BBC, Winter, Federal, Partners, and RN, and Defendants Jane and Associates had already been dismissed after settlement. The result of the December 15, 2020 hearing was a complete disposition of all remaining aspects of the case.

On January 12, 2021, Judge Terry Green formally declared Eugene Oak a vexatious litigant in this matter. Under that order, Oak became subject to a Code of Civil Procedure section § 391.7 prefiling requirement that requires Oak to get the permission of the presiding judge to file new litigation. Permission is granted only if it appears the litigation has merit and is not being filed for purposes of harassment or delay. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(b).)

On February 15, Plaintiff made a motion before Department 1 to vacate the prefiling order against him which was denied because it was premature.

On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff obtained a new fee waiver and filed a frivolous motion for reconsideration.

On August 28, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and found Plaintiff filed the motion in bad faith.

On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to set aside the August 28, 2024 order denying his motion for reconsideration.

On October 3, 2024, Department 1 denied Plaintiff’s requests for clarification.

On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for withdrawal of Defendants’ attorneys of record and to change a judge trial to jury trial.

Plaintiff has reserved a hearing on a motion to disqualify the judicial officer assigned to this department.

Plaintiff moves to set aside the August 28, 2024 order denying his motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the August 28, 2024 order denying his motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Court sets an OSC re: revocation of fee waiver for November 8, 2024. ___

Plaintiff moves to set aside the August 28, 2024 order denying his motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the order was entered based on fraud. As will be discussed below, each of Plaintiff’s arguments is without merit.

Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants are in default because they failed to appear for the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, which took place on August 6, 2024. However, all Defendants in this matter have been dismissed and cannot be in default.

Plaintiff also argues that the clerk in this department extended the time Plaintiff had to file the motion for reconsideration. There is no law that court clerks are authorized to extend the time limit to file a motion for reconsideration under Code Civ. Proc., section 1008.

Plaintiff argues that the Court should have granted the motion for reconsideration due to a change of law because Judge Terry Green committed bribery. This is not a change of law which would justify setting aside an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff argues Defendant Winter committed fraud, trickery, deceit, oppression, and malice. This argument is unintelligible and unrelated to the motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff argues vexatious litigant order is not applicable to Plaintiff in this case because this is not new litigation. The Court did not deny the motion for reconsideration because of Plaintiff’s status as a vexatious litigant.

Plaintiff argues Attorney Eddie Jauregui made misrepresentations or committed misconduct. Again, this argument is unintelligible and unrelated to the motion for reconsideration.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges Defendant BBC was never a grantor. Again, this argument is unintelligible and unrelated to the motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff fails to show that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was entered due to fraud. None of the arguments raised in his motion to set aside the order have anything to do with equitable grounds to set aside the order. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s 168-page motion to set aside was filed in bad faith. In just one month, Plaintiff filed this and many more frivolous documents in this matter which demonstrate that he is again engaging in abusive behavior. Pursuant to Gov. Code, section 68636(f), Plaintiff is ordered to appear at a court hearing to consider whether limitations should be placed on court services for which Plaintiff’s fees were waived.

Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the August 28, 2024 order denying his motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Court sets an OSC re: revocation of fee waiver for November 8, 2024.

[1] Defendant Choi was served with the Third Amended Complaint on August 5, 2019. His counsel filed a motion to strike on September 5, 2019. That motion was mooted by the Fourth Amended Complaint. There is no indication that Defendant Choi was ever served with the Fourth Amended Complaint.