Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: BC449910, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC449910    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 19, 2010, Plaintiff Alyssa Backlund filed this action against Defendants Christopher Stone and Elite Imaging Concepts, LLC, asserting causes of action for (1) defamation, (2) false light, (3) public disclosure of private facts, (4) abuse of process, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. The complaint stems from alleged false statements and material about Plaintiff that Defendants posted online. 

            On December 3, 2013, default judgment was entered for Plaintiff against Defendants. The judgment was renewed on November 28, 2023.

            On June 10, 2024, the Court denied Defendant Stone’s motion to vacate the renewal. On August 12, 2024, the Court denied Defendant Stone’s motion for reconsideration. Defendant has since appealed the decision.

            On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to deem Defendant Stone a vexatious litigant. Defendant filed his opposition on November 4, 2024. Plaintiff filed her reply on November 8, 2024.      

LEGAL STANDARD

A vexatious litigant is defined as a person who has done any of the following: (1) in the last seven years has commenced at least five litigations in propria persona outside of small claims that have been adversely determined against the person or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending for two years without being brought to trial; (2) repeatedly relitigates in propria persona the validity of a determination against the same defendant; (3) repeatedly files in propria persona unmeritorious motions or pleadings to cause unnecessary delay; (4) has been previously declared a vexatious litigant in any action based on the same or substantially similar facts; or (5) files meritless and harassing litigation against a person protected by a restraining order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391(b).) 

“[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., § 391.7(a).)

DISCUSSION

I. Vexatious Litigant

            Plaintiff argues that Defendant Stone is a vexatious litigant by pointing to Defendant’s extensive litigation history. (Mtn. 7:4-9:18.) However, the quantity of lawsuits alone does not warrant a vexatious litigant designation. Plaintiff does not attempt to connect any of the lawsuits to the definitions set forth in the statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 391(b).) Plaintiff merely speculates that “[m]any of the Defendants are believed to have settled with Stone on a nuisance basis, to end frivolous litigation.” (Mtn. 7:5-6.) Plaintiff does not engage in any actual analysis of the merits of each lawsuit. Defendant concedes that two of the listed lawsuits resulted in final adverse determinations against him, but that is insufficient to render him a vexatious litigant, because the code requires five such lawsuits in a seven-year period. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391(b)(1).)   

            Plaintiff also points to Defendant’s unsuccessful motion to vacate, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, and pending appeal in this case. However, “the evidence does not support the finding that [Defendant’s] motions were so numerous, ‘unmeritorious’ or ‘frivolous’ as to come within the meaning of the vexatious litigant legislation.” (See Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 972.) “[M]ost cases affirming the vexatious litigant designation involve situations where litigants have filed dozens of motions either during the pendency of an action or relating to the same judgment.” (Ibid.) Here, Defendant has only challenged the Court’s ruling through one motion for reconsideration and an appeal. The Court does not find that Defendant’s arguments were frivolous, or “so devoid of merit . . . that they can be described as a ‘flagrant abuse of the system,’ have ‘no reasonable probability of success,’ lack ‘reasonable or probable cause or excuse’ and are clearly meant to ‘abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants.’” (Ibid.)

            In sum, the Court finds no basis to designate Defendant Stone a vexatious litigant.

II. Bond

            Plaintiff alternatively requests that Defendant be required to post a bond for the appeal under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1. (Mtn. 10:18-26.) “Unless an undertaking is given, the perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order is for . . . [m]oney or the payment of money.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 917.1(a).)

            However, Defendant does not seek a stay of enforcement pending the appeal. Section 917.1 does not impose a bond requirement for maintaining an appeal; it imposes a bond requirement for staying enforcement pending an appeal. Even if a bond were imposed, Defendant’s failure to pay it would not preclude him from proceeding with the appeal. It would simply mean that enforcement of the money judgment is not stayed, and Plaintiff may proceed with collection efforts despite the pending appeal.

            In reply, Plaintiff shifts to arguing for a bond under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1. (Reply 3:26-4:5.) That section provides that “a defendant may move the court . . . for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or for an order dismissing the litigation . . . based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that they will prevail.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.1(a).) Section 391.1 requires a vexatious plaintiff to post a bond or face dismissal of a meritless lawsuit. The statute, by definition, does not apply to a defendant.  

            In sum, there is no basis to impose a bond.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to deem Defendant Stone a vexatious litigant is DENIED. Plaintiff’s alternative request to impose a bond is DENIED.