Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV00329, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV00329 Hearing Date: May 13, 2024 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR CORPORATE FRAUD AND CRIME AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS is CONTINUED to 6/25/24; see also briefing schedule re: deeming Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
Background
This case arises from a car accident that happened on 1/31/2020.
On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff Bin Yang filed suit against Mercury Insurance Company for Corporate Fraud and Crime based upon Mercury’s alleged mishandling of an insurance claim.
On March 18, 2024, Defenant filed the instant motion to strike (MTS) to strike Plaintiff’s complaint.
On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed her opposition.
On May 6, 2024, Defendant filed its reply.
Discussion
The court is inclined to continue the MTS to June 25, 2024 (the date of the CMC). The MTS is largely predicated upon the doctrine of res judicata because a final judgment (dismissal without prejudice) was entered in the case of 23PSCV00230, a case based upon identical facts and allegations.[1] Not only has there been a judgment in a related case, but this is the third action filed against Defendant Mercury based upon the same allegations (24PSCV00329, 21STCV23749, and 23PSCV00230).
Plaintiff’s unmeritorious papers, however, have not only been present in the foregoing cases but multiple other cases (see e.g., Bin Yang v. Allstate (23PSCV00229), Bin Yang v. Interinsurance Exachange [sic] of the Automobile Club (23PSCV01807), and Bin Yang v. Automobile Club (23PSCV01160). In fact, in 23PSCV01807 case, Plaintiff, on 11/6/23, filed a ‘Notice of Urgent Need to Stop Man-Made Heart Attack in California,’ which related to the same car accident.[2]
With that, the court is inclined, on its own motion, to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP section 391 provides four ways in which a plaintiff may be deemed a vexatious litigant. Of pertinence here is CCP section 391 section (3) which states the following:
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. (emphasis added).
Here, a review of Plaintiff’s papers in these three related cases illustrates that they are all unmeritorious because they fail to state a cognizable claim as a matter of law and are predicted upon incoherent allegations. Additionally, Plaintiff repeatedly dismisses actions but then refiles cases, indicating that she is unnecessarily causing delay.
Should the parties desire to file briefs on the issue of whether to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, they are invited to do so. Should the parties do so, briefs must be submitted by Monday, June 10, 2024.
Therefore, the hearing on the MTS and motion to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant will be held on Monday, June 25, 2024 at 10:00 AM.
[1] Neither party has filed a notice of related case. According to California Rules of Court Rule 3.300, “[w]henever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case.” (CRC Rule 3.300, subd. (b).) “The Notice of Related Case must be served and filed as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known.” (CRC Rule 3.300, subd. (e).)
[2] Plaintiff filed her first case in 2005.