Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV30389, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Hankey Investment Company LP’s unopposed motion for an order requiring Plaintiff Doe aka Jerome Eady to furnish a security in the amount of $90,000.00 to proceed with this litigation is granted.

Defendant Hankey Investment Company LP (“Hankey”) (“Defendant”) moves unopposed for an order requiring Plaintiff Doe aka Jerome Eady (“Eady”) (“Plaintiff”) to furnish a security in the amount of $90,000.00 to proceed with this litigation, or in the alternative to dismiss this action. (Notice Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§391.1 et seq.)

Defendant’s 4/2/24 request for judicial notice of (1) The Court’s Order Declaring Jerome Eady to Be a Vexatious Litigant, LASC Case No. 23STCV30391, decided on February 8, 2024, (D-RJN, Exh. A); (2) Judgment for the Unlawful Detainer against Eady, LASC Case No. 23STUD08792, decided on January 22, 2024, (D-RJN, Exh. B); and (3) Order amending the Judgment for the Unlawful Detainer against Eady, LASC Case No. 23STUD08792, signed on February 23, 2024, (D-RJN, Exh. C) is granted.

On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed his eleventh unlimited lawsuit against Defendant. On February 8, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Declare Jerome Eady a Vexatious Litigant. On March 4, 2024, the Court declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (3/4/24 Order Declaring Eady Vexatious Litigant.)

Plaintiff lost the unlawful detainer case against him by Defendant. (See D-RJN, Exh. B.) In the Court’s Ruling, the Court entered judgment “for Plaintiff Circa 1200, LLC against Defendant Jerome Eady and Defendant Dan Jones on the Complaint filed by Circa on 07/17/2023 for past rent due in the amount of $7,568.00, holdover damages $2,432.00, and costs of $360.00 for a total of $10,360.00.” (See D-RJN, Exh. B at pg. 1.) The Court further ordered that the restitution and possession of 1200 S. Figueroa Street #W1704, Los Angeles, CA 90015 is granted for Circa 1200, LLC. (See D-RJN, Exh. B at pg. 1.) Finally, the Court forfeited the lease agreement which Plaintiff is currently attempting to sue under. (See D-RJN, Exh. B at pg. 1.) The Court also granted an order to amend the Writ of Possession to reflect all names of Plaintiff. (See D-RJN, Exh. C at pg. 2.)

C.C.P. §391.3(a) provides that a Court shall order a vexatious litigant to furnish security if “there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail.” C.C.P. §391.3(a) states:

Except as provided in subdivision (b), if, after hearing the evidence upon the motion, the court determines that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant, the court shall order the plaintiff to furnish, for the benefit of the moving defendant, security in such amount and within such time as the court shall fix.

(C.C.P. §391.3(a), emphasis added). In the alternative, however, if the Court finds that the litigation has no merit, the Court shall dismiss the action. C.C.P. §391.3(b) states, in part: “If, after hearing evidence on the motion, the court determines that the litigation has no merit and has been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay, the court shall order the litigation dismissed.” (C.C.P. §391.3(b).)

Defendant’s motion for an order requiring Plaintiff to furnish a security to proceed in this matter is granted. First, Plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant by order of this Court, satisfying the first condition of C.C.P. §391.3(a). (See 3/4/24 Order Declaring Eady Vexatious Litigant.)

Second, Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim against Defendant in his complaint. Under C.C.P. §391.3, the required showing that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on his claim is “ordinarily made by the weight of the evidence.” (Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 642, as modified on denial of reh’g, (Dec. 23, 2010).) A lack of merit may also be established “by demonstrating that the plaintiff cannot prevail in the action as a matter of law.” (Id.) Here, Plaintiff cannot prevail in this lawsuit as a matter of law because the issue in this matter (breach of rental contract) has already been determined in Case No. 23STUD08792 and is therefore barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Under C.C.P. §391(c), a security is meant to assure payment to the party that benefits from the security. (See C.C.P. §391(c).) C.C.P. §391(c) states, in part: “‘Security’ means an undertaking to assure payment . . . of the party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and not limited to taxable costs, incurred in or in connection with a litigation instituted, caused to be instituted, or maintained or caused to be maintained by a vexatious litigant.” Here, Defendant has incurred attorney’s fees and costs of over $90,000 in connection with all the lawsuits filed by Plaintiff. (See Decl. of Lauro, Exh. D.)

Under CCP §391.6, the entirety of this litigation is stayed. The stay shall remain effective until 10 days after the security is furnished, and the statute does not carve out any exception for proceedings that may continue during that period except for the dismissal of the action. (See Hanna v. Little League Baseball, Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 871, 875-876.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to furnish a security in the amount of $90,000.00 to be paid within 10 days of this ruling.

Defendant’s unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to furnish a security in the amount of $90,000.00 to be paid within 10 days of this ruling.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court