Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV16843, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16843    Hearing Date: March 3, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

 Plaintiff’s motion to have Flaherty declared a vexatious litigant is GRANTED. A prefiling order is to be issued.

            On 7/8/2024, Plaintiff Holly Hill Investments (Plaintiff) filed suit against Vincent Flaherty, KHG Trust, and San Juan Investments, LLC, alleging: (1) cancellation of instruments; (2) slander of title; (3) quiet title; and (4) declaratory relief.

            On 12/3/2024, Plaintiff moved to have Vincent Flaherty declared a vexatious litigant.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Vexatious litigant statutes were created to counter the abuse of the court system by “persistent and obsessive litigants.”  (Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 211, 220-21.)  Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 391.1 through 391.6, to counter a potential vexatious litigant, “a defendant may stay pending litigation by moving to require a vexatious litigant to furnish security if the court determines ‘there is not a reasonable probability’ the plaintiff will prevail.  Failure to produce the ordered security results in dismissal of the litigation in favor of the defendant.”  (Id. at 221; CCP §§ 391.1, 391.4.) 

Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 391.1, for the court to grant a motion for requiring security, a defendant is required to show (1) that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, and (2) “that there is not a reasonable probability that he¿or she¿will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.”  (CCP § 391.1.)  Under section 391, to show that a plaintiff is vexatious, the plaintiff needs to be either of the following types of vexatious litigants:  

(1) A vexatious litigant is a person who, in the immediately preceding 7 years “has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained” in propria persona at least five litigations, other than in a small claims court, that have been (a) finally determined adversely to the person, or (b) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least 2 years without having been brought to trial or hearing. 

(2) A vexatious litigant is a person who, “after a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate in propria persona either (a) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined, or (b) 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) A vexatious litigant is a person who, “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) A vexatious litigant is a person who, “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.” 

            Here, Plaintiff argues that Flaherty qualifies as a vexatious litigant under CCP sections 391(b)(2) and 391(b)(3). In support, Plaintiff submitted evidence of seven cases wherein Flaherty has asserted that he remains the owner of the Property at issue in this litigation and that the foreclosure by Recontrust Company in 2012 was “wrongful.” In each of these cases, Flaherty’s claims have been denied. Plaintiff submitted evidence related to eight additional cases wherein Flaherty was unsuccessful in his claims related to the Property, and was unsuccessful in every single appeal. Finally, Plaintiff submitted evidence that Flaherty has a pattern of engaging in frivolous motion practice. (See Case No. 19SMCV02002.)

            Taken together, Plaintiff’s evidence supports a finding that Flaherty has: (1) repeatedly attempted to relitigate claims finally determined against him; (2) the statutory requirement of a final determination is satisfied (Holcomb v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1502); and (3) declaring Flaherty a vexatious litigant is in accordance with the intent and spirit of CCP section 391.

            Flaherty failed to oppose this motion, and thus has not set forth any evidence to refute or counter Plaintiff’s claims. The Court takes Flaherty’s non-opposition to be a concession to Plaintiff’s motion on the merits.

Because Flaherty, in propria persona, has (1) attempted to relitigate claims finally determined against him, (2) done so in a pattern that carries the risk of repetition in this case, and (3) thereby created the exact problem CCP section 391 is intended to address, Flaherty qualifies as a vexatious litigant under CCP section 391(b)(2).

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to have Flaherty declared a vexatious litigant is granted. A prefiling order is to be issued.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED.

On 7/8/2024, Plaintiff Holly Hill Investments (Plaintiff) filed suit against Vincent Flaherty, KHG Trust, and San Juan Investments, LLC, alleging: (1) cancellation of instruments; (2) slander of title; (3) quiet title; and (4) declaratory relief.

            On 11/20/2024, Defendant Vincent Flaherty (Defendant) filed a motion to quash service of summons.

Discussion 

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to properly serve him in this action, and that “the allegations and declarations of due diligence of Plaintiff Holly Hill Investments, LLC [] used to obtain an order to serve by publication were either false or designed in a manner to not give notice.” (Motion, 1, 24-26.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff submitted evidence to show proper service was effectuated. Before serving by publication, Plaintiff attempted to personally serve Flaherty on six different occasions. (Ex. B.) Each time, personal service could not be completed. So, Plaintiff requested an order to serve Flaherty via publication. The Court granted that request on September 18, 2024.

Flaherty was then properly served by Publication in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, in the county where Flaherty lives and where the Property is situated, on (1) September 27, 2024, (2) October 4, 2024, (3) October 11, 2024, and (4) October 18, 2024. (Ex. A.)

            The filing of a statutorily compliant proof of service by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service.” (Cal. Evid. Code, § 647; Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441-1442.) Holly Hill filed a statutorily compliant proof of service based on an Order of Publication granted by this Court. Accordingly, the Court finds insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of proper service.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.