Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case 21STCV47548 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Gregory Wong vs. Glendale Adventist Medical Center, et al., Case No. 21STCV47548

Motions to Dismiss for Failure to Post Security Pursuant to CCP § 391.4 filed by both Dr. Jilbert D. Issai and Adventist Health Glendale

This is the third lawsuit related to similar events filed by Plaintiff Gregory Wong. These lawsuits have all been related to the death of Plaintiff’s aunt in 2011. This Court deemed Plaintiff a vexatious litigant at a hearing on September 7, 2022, and the Court required Plaintiff to furnish security in the amount of $30,000 to Defendant Dr. Jilbert D. Issai by October 7, 2022, and the Court required Plaintiff to furnish security in the amount of $30,000 to Defendant Adventist Health Glendale by October 7, 2022. Plaintiff has not done so. On November 30, 2022, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the vexatious litigant decision.

On October 19, 2022, Defendant Dr. Issai filed this motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as to Defendant Dr. Issai due to Plaintiff’s failure to furnish the required $30,000 security. On November 21, 2022, Defendant Adventist Health Glendale (formerly Glendale Adventist Medical Center) (GAMC) filed this motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as to Defendant GAMC due to Plaintiff’s failure to furnish the required $30,000 security.

This motion is made pursuant to CCP § 391.4. Rather than opposing this motion on these grounds, the opposition filed by Plaintiff attempts to relitigate the vexatious litigant decision and the previous cases filed by Plaintiff.

Defendant Dr. Issai requests that the Court take judicial notice of the case files of the prior cases filed by Plaintiff. Those other cases add nothing relevant to this motion and that request is therefore denied.

The California Supreme Court has confirmed that under the vexatious litigation statutory scheme, “A vexatious litigant may be required to furnish security if the trial court determines there is no reasonable probability he or she will prevail. (CCP §§ 391.1, 391.3.) Failure to do so results in dismissal. (CCP § 391.4.)” (Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 780.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 391.4 mandates, “When security that has been ordered furnished is not furnished as ordered, the litigation shall be dismissed as to the defendant for whose benefit it was ordered furnished.” (See also, Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 73 [Party found to be vexatious litigant was properly ordered to deposit security for costs, and dismissal of his suit was required when security was not provided].)

In the case of Singh v. Lipworth (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 40, a career vexatious litigant appealed an order dismissing his action after he was declared a vexatious litigant and failed to post the required security. In its decision, the Court stated:

“‘The vexatious litigant statute (§§ 391-391.7) was enacted in 1963 to curb misuse of the court system by those acting in propria persona who repeatedly relitigate the same issues. Their abuse of the system not only wastes court time and resources but also prejudices other parties waiting their turn before the courts. [Citations.] [¶] The statute defines a “vexatious litigant,” provides a procedure in pending litigation for declaring a person a vexatious litigant, and establishes procedural strictures that can be imposed on vexatious litigants. A vexatious litigant may be required to furnish security before proceeding with the pending litigation; if that security is not furnished, the litigation must be dismissed. (§§ 391.3, 391.4.)’ (In re Bittaker (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008.)”

Here, Plaintiff failed to furnish the required security to Defendant Dr. Issai and Adventist Health Glendale after he was found to be a vexatious litigant. As such, the litigation as to both Defendants Dr. Issai and Adventist Health Glendale should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants Dr. Issai and Adventist Health Glendale are GRANTED.