Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV03841, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV03841    Hearing Date: December 13, 2024    Dept: A

MOTION TO DECLARE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

This action originates from litigation designated LASC Case No:  BC546729. On May 23, 2014, Frederick Pina (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against various parties in connection with a motor vehicle incident. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) represented one of the insured defendants in this matter.

On January 15, 2017, State Farm’s Motion for Evidence Sanctions was granted in this matter. Plaintiff alleges this motion was “fraudulently designed to unlawfully strip Plaintiff of his legal right to present critical evidence to a jury” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges this motion was the result of a conspiracy by State Farm’s counsel to induce Plaintiff to settle the case. (Compl. p. 26.) Plaintiff alleges he was informed by State Farm’s counsel that all discovery was complete, and that State Farm’s counsel made this representation to prevent Plaintiff from opposing the Motion for Evidence Sanctions. (Id.) Plaintiff thereafter settled this action.

Before the Court is State Farm’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. This motion does not directly concern LASC Case No:  BC546729, rather it is based on a variety of lawsuits Plaintiff filed after settlement was reached in the initial case. In those cases, Plaintiff brought claims against State Farm for its alleged fraudulent conduct in moving for evidence sanctions. State Farm states that each of these litigations, and their subsequent appeals, were adversely determined against Defendant. State Farm thus argues that this litigation is an attempt to impermissibly relitigate the judgments in those actions and the legal issues underlying them.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 391 defines a vexations litigant as a person who:

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

(3) 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.

(4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence.

Litigation means any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained or pending in any state or federal court. (C.C.P. § 391(a).) “A litigation is finally determined adversely to a plaintiff if he does not win the action or proceeding he began, including cases that are voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff.” (Garcia v. Lacey (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 402, 406-407.) The phrase “final determination against the same defendant” as used in determining whether plaintiff is vexatious litigant by continuing to relitigate such determination, refers to judgment in favor of defendant with respect to which all avenues for direct review have been exhausted. (Childs v. PaineWebber Incorporated (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 982, 993.)

“In any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until final judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or for an order dismissing the litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 391.3.” (C.C.P. § 391.1.) “The motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security shall be 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 he or she will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” (Id.)

“At the hearing upon the motion the court shall consider any evidence, written or oral, by witnesses or affidavit, as may be material to the ground of the motion.” (C.C.P. § 391.2.) “Except for an order dismissing the litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 391.3, no determination made by the court in determining or ruling upon the motion shall be or be deemed to be a determination of any issue in the litigation or of the merits thereof.” (Id.)

II.                 MERITS

Judicial Notice

State Farm requests judicial notice be taken of various filings and orders issued in the previous litigations brought by Plaintiff before the California Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, California Supreme Court, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and United States Supreme Court. (See RJN Exhs. A-W.)

The Court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code § 452(d).) This includes any orders, findings of facts and conclusions of law, and judgments within court records. (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

Pursuant to Evidence Code § 452, State Farm’s requests are GRANTED.

Prior Lawsuits

California Superior Court Case No: 21STCV13962

On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the above case, alleging causes of action for (1) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, (2) Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et. Seq, (3) Fraud, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (6) Violation of Civil Rights. (See Mot. Exh. A, RJN Exh. A.)

On November 4, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing for State Farm’s demurrer to each cause of action. (Mot. Exh. B, RJN Exh. B.) Both parties were in attendance and submitted to the Court’s tentative ruling. (Id.) The trial court sustained the demurrer to each cause of action without leave to amend, with the exception of the cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted leave to amend this cause of action. (Id.)

On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint containing causes of action for (1) Fraud, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). (Mot. Exh., C, RJN Exh. C.)

On August 12, 2022, the trial court sustained State Farm’s demurrer to the Breach of Fiduciary Duty cause of action without leave to amend. (Mot. Exh. D, RJN Exh. D.) Plaintiff did not oppose this demurrer. (Id.) The trial court granted the motion to strike the causes of action for Fraud and NIED on grounds that Plaintiff did not obtain leave of the Court to assert those claims in light of the previous demurrer being sustained without leave to amend. (Id.) A Non-Appearance Case Review re: Status of Submission of Proposed Judgment of Dismissal was then scheduled for December 8, 2022. (Id.)

On September 13, 2024, this action was dismissed with prejudice by entry of judgment from the trial court after demurrer was sustained to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. (Mot. Exh. E, RJN Exh. E.) Notice of entry of judgment was thereafter provided to Plaintiff by the Clerk of the Court. (Mot. Exh. F, RJN Exh. F.) 

On April 4, 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal of his lawsuit and for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Mot. Exh. G.) Plaintiff’s motion was denied for failure to show he was entitled to relief under C.C.P. § 473(b). (Id.)

Plaintiff then appealed the trial court order in the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal. (Mot. Exh. G, RJN Exh. G.) On May 8, 2024, the Second District granted State Farm’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal. (Id.) The court found that Plaintiff’s July 10, 2023 notice of appeal was filed more than 300 days after the September 12, 2022 entry of judgment and thus Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed. (Id.)

On Aug 14, 2024, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition for review, requests for judicial notice, motion for leave to file supplemental brief, and motion for leave to file attachment. (Mot. Exh. L, RJN Exh. H.)

United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: 2:23-cv-02672-MKS-SK

On April 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the above referenced case. (Mot. Exh. M, RJN Exh. I.) Plaintiff asserted claims for (1) Fraud, (2) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, (3) violations of the Securities Act of 1933, (4) Violation of Civil Rights, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), and (6) Federal Perjury. (Id.) Plaintiff’s claims reiterated those made in his pleadings in LASC Case No: 21STCV13962, namely that Plaintiff was improperly precluded from proceeding with his claims because of State Farm’s Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions. (Id.)

On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed an FAC in the Central District Matter. The FAC contained causes of action for (1) Fraud, (2) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, and (3) Violation of Civil Rights. (Mot. Exh. N, RJN Exh. J.)

On June 12, 2023, the Central District Court dismissed this action with prejudice. (Mot. Exh. O, RJN Exh. K.) The District Court found that Plaintiff’s initial application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied because his Complaint “…failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted in federal court.” (RJN Exh. L at p. 151.) The District Court granted leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigant. (Id.) The District Court next found that Plaintiff’s FAC also failed to state a claim because it was barred by res judicata. (Id.)  Further, the District Court observed that Plaintiff never paid the filing fees for the FAC nor reapplied to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.)

On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the order dismissing his action with prejudice in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (RJN Exh. L.)

On April 2, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Central District decision. (Mot. Exh. P.)  The Ninth Circuit held, “The district court properly dismissed Pina' s action on the basis of claim preclusion because Pina's claims alleging improper conduct by State Farm's counsel during Pina's personal injury litigation involved the same parties and primary right raised in a prior state court action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” (Id. at p. 193.) The court further held, “We reject as meritless Pina's contentions that the district court acted without authority in issuing its decisions, violated federal law, or was biased against Pina.” (Id.)

Also on April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit ruling, asserting the decision was in conflict with precedent on claim preclusion. (Mot. Exh. O, RJN Exh. N.) On July 11, 2024, this petition was denied. (Mot. Exh. R., RJN Exh. M.)

On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff’s writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied. (Mot. Exh. S, RJN Exh. P.)

United States District Court for the Central District of California. Case Number 2:23-cv-10245-MCS-SK

On December 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the above referenced case stating claims for (1) Violations of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, (2) Obstruction of Justice, and (3) Receiving the Proceeds of Extortion. (RJN Exh. Q.) This Complaint explicitly concerned Plaintiff’s allegation that he was improperly precluded from proceeding with his claims because of State Farm’s Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions in LASC Case No: 21STCV13962. (Id. at p. 194.)

On December 22, 2023, the Central District dismissed this action with prejudice on grounds that it was barred by the judgment in the prior Central District action. (Mot. Exh. T, RJN Exh. R.) The Central District found this case pertained “…to the same transaction and occurrence as a prior case Plaintiff brought in this court against Defendant.” (Id. at p. 360.) The court also denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to disqualify one of the Magistrate Judge’s from the case. (Id. at 362.)

On January 18, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal denied Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandamus in this case. (RJN Exh. S.) Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this appeal with the appeal in the prior case was also denied. (Id.)

Discussion

In making this motion, State Farm alleges Plaintiff is attempting to relitigate matters which have already been conclusively determined in LASC Case No: 21STCV13962, District Court Case No: 2:23-cv-02672-MKS-SK, and District Court Case Number 2:23-cv-10245-MCS-SK. State Farm asks the Court to consider Plaintiff a vexatious litigant because the claims in these lawsuits, all of which stem from the Motion for Evidence Sanctions in LASC Case No: BC546729, have already been adversely determined against Plaintiff at both the trial and appellate levels.

The Court finds the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint are an attempt to relitigate issued which have already been adversely determined against him. LASC Case No: 21STCV13962 contained factual allegations which are virtually identical to those asserted in the Complaint in this action. The fact that Plaintiff has now couched these allegations in the form of different causes of action does not permit him to avoid the judgment. State Farm has sufficiently demonstrated this to be the case by virtue of judicially noticing the several judgments obtained against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff argues that this lawsuit is not an attempt to relitigate issues presented in his previous litigations because it is based on “new facts and procedural defects” which are distinct from the prior actions. This argument in unpersuasive.

C.C.P. § 391(2) does not require that the claims in the current litigation be a mirror image of those presented in the previous litigation. Instead, C.C.P. § 391(2) allows for a determination of vexatious litigant where the current claim attempts to relitigate either (1) the validity of a previous adverse determination or (2) the issues which served as the basis for that previous adverse determination. Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case does both.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that the determination in LASC Case No: 21STCV13962 was the result of the judge in that case engaging “…in a willful dereliction of her judicial duties by refusing to sign an Order from the July 7, 2023.” (Compl. p. 5.) This allegation, and the many that flow from it, all constitute a challenge to the validity of the judgment against Plaintiff in LASC Case No: 21STCV13962. Further, the validity of the judgment was put before the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. Plaintiff’s appeal was denied by the Court of Appeal and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court.

Plaintiff does not identify what new facts or allegations which differentiate this action. Presumably Plaintiff refers to his allegation that the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal because they were unaware of the deception by the trial judge.  (See Compl. p. 5.) Plaintiff further alleges that this deception was the basis for the Supreme Court’s denial of his petition. (Id.) The Court does not see any way in which these allegations could be construed as anything other than a challenge to the validity of an adverse determination against him in LASC Case No: 21STCV13962. Plaintiff’s allegations of judicial misconduct were presented to the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court and determined to be without merit. Plaintiff’s opposition also completely omits any discussion of his two actions in the Central District Court. From the Court’s review of the pleadings in those cases, they too mirror the allegations of this case.

Plaintiff’s argument that he cannot be declared a vexatious litigant because he has alleged extrinsic fraud is similarly unpersuasive. Extrinsic fraud usually arises when a party is denied a fair adversary hearing because he has been “deliberately kept in ignorance of the action or proceeding, or in some other way fraudulently prevented from presenting his claim or defense.” (Kulchar v. Kulchar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 467, 471.) Here, each of the previous actions filed by Plaintiff included allegations of fraud which were subsequently determined to be without merit by the relevant trial courts and appellate bodies. The fact that Plaintiff now frames these allegations as extrinsic fraud, rather than ordinary fraud, does not change the fact that his underlying allegations remain the same.

In addition to attempted relitigating under C.C.P. § 391(2), the Court also finds Plaintiff has repeatedly filed “unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers” as described in C.C.P. § 391(3). In the roughly four months this litigation has been pending, Plaintiff has requested the Clerk enter default against State Farm no less than 14 times. These attempts have continued despite the fact that Plaintiff has been repeatedly informed that State Farm’s filing of this motion automatically stayed proceedings in this action. (See C.C.P. § 391.3) Since being informed of the mandatory stay, Plaintiff has also filed 19 “declarations” repeatedly alleging that this Court is unlawfully refusing to enter default and is engaged in a conspiracy to deny Plaintiff his Constitutional rights. These declarations were filed unconnected with any motion and appear to have been filed for no purpose other than to forestall adjudication of this motion.

In short, the Court finds State Farm has adequately demonstrated Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff’s litigation seeks to improperly challenge the judgments rendered against him in both state and federal court, as well as to impermissibly relitigate his claims of fraud by State Farm. It is apparent from the numerous filings juridically noticed by State Farm that Plaintiff has no reasonable probability of prevailing, as his claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The claims Plaintiff presents in this case have all been litigated and determined adversely against him. Further, Plaintiff has presented no facts which distinguish the claims made in this case from those previously determined.

Accordingly, the only issue remaining is that of security. “Security” is defined as “an undertaking to assure payment, to the party for whose benefit the undertaking is required to be furnished, 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.” (C.C.P. § 391(c).) The Court is ultimately responsible for fixing an appropriate amount of security to cover the moving party's reasonable expenses. (C.C.P. § 391.3 [“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.]”.)

The Court grants State Farm’s request that Plaintiff be required to post security in the amount of $17,875.00. This amount reflects the costs estimated by State Farm’s counsel in defending this action, totaling 55 hours at a rate of $325 per hour. (Bhatia Decl. ¶ 50.) This estimate is reasonable, as, in the Court’ experience, it is far below the average time cases such as this usually require, and the attorney’s rate is below average. Plaintiff is required to post security no later than January 15, 2025. 

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant came on regularly for hearing on December 13, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

STATE FARM’S MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT IS GRANTED.

TO PROCEED IN THIS ACTION, PLAINTIFF IS REQUIRED TO POST SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $17, 875.00 NO LATER THAN JANUARY 15, 2025.

THE COURT SETS A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND A OSC RE: POSTING OF SECURITY FOR JANUARY 16, 2025 AT 9:00 AM.

DEFENDANT STATE FARM TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  December 13, 2024                           _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles