Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 24STCV07439, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV07439, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07439 Hearing Date: March 11, 2025 Dept: 61

LEONARD I. ANEBERE vs SEAN MAIN, AN INDIVIDUAL

Tentative

Defendants Sean Main and Laura Erlich’s Motion to Designate Plaintiff Leonard Anebere a Vexatious Litigant is DENIED.

Clerk is to give notice.

Analysis

III. MOTION TO DECLARE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

Defendants Laura Erlich and Sean Main (Defendants) move to have Plaintiff Leonard Anebere (Plaintiff) declared a vexatious litigant. (Motion at pp. 2–5.)

(b) “Vexatious litigant” means a person who does any of the following:

(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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 391, subd. (b)(1)–(4.)

In addition to any other relief provided in this title, the 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, subd. (a).)

Defendants cite the following evidence to support their argument that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff commenced a case against Defendants on October 31, 2018, LASC Case No. 18STCV03083, alleging two causes of action for quiet title and trespass to chattels, claiming that Defendants had built a wall encroaching on his property and had stolen one of his dogs. (See 18STCV03083 Complaint ¶¶ 14–15.) Plaintiff also alleged a claim based on Defendants’ making false reports to animal control. (See 7/8/2019 Minute Order.) Following successive demurrers, Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed based on his lack of title to the property at issue and that Plaintiff had pleaded no substantial damages resulting from Plaintiffs holding his dog for 25 minutes. (Ibid.) The court also finally ruled that Defendants’ calls to animal control were privileged under Civil Code § 47. (Ibid.) This order was made on July 8, 2019. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 17, 2019, and judgment was entered on July 26, 2019. No appeal was filed.

Four days later, on July 30 2019, Plaintiff filed another complaint against Defendants in LASC Case No. 19STCV26420. Plaintiff once again alleged two causes of action for quiet title and trespass to chattels, based on the encroaching wall and the allegedly stolen dog. (19STCV26428 Complaint ¶¶ 11–14.) Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted on April 18, 2023, on the grounds of res judicata in relation to the prior action. Judgment was entered on July 5, 2023. Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the ruling on May 23, 2023, which was denied on July 31, 2023.

Plaintiff’s current action, alleged against the same defendants, largely sounds in different facts, including allegations of courthouse assault, spraying with a garden hose, repeated use of racial slurs, peering over a fence to spy on Plaintiff, and conspiring with others to defame Plaintiff and obstruct his business and personal affairs. However, the Complaint in this action continues to allege that Defendants are in the business of stealing Plaintiff’s dogs, and now cats as well, as set forth in Plaintiff’s fifteenth and sixteenth causes of action for conversion and trespass to personal property. (Complaint ¶¶ 175–176.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff may be declared a vexatious litigant under subdivision (b)(1) of Code of Civil Procedure § 391, as he has maintained five litigations determined adversely to him within the past seven years. (Motion at p. 4.) But Plaintiffs have identified only the cases filed against them in 2018 and 2019, which have been adversely determined against Plaintiff. Defendants offer this court has no basis to identify the other cases purportedly decided against Plaintiff in this period, or to determine whether they fit within the criteria of the subsection.

Defendants’ materials suggest an arguable basis for designating Plaintiff as a vexatious litigant under subdivision (b)(2) of the statute, as this action represents Plaintiff’s second attempt to relitigate the issue of the alleged theft of his dog, and thus it may be said that Plaintiff, here and in the prior action, ”repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona . . . the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined,” as well as “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 391, subd. (b)(2).)

However, courts have expressed reluctance to permit a vexatious litigant determination based on two relitigation attempts alone, at least without prior warning. (See Holcomb v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1504 [“The question now is whether these two attempts at relitigation alone are sufficient to satisfy the requirement a party ‘repeatedly’ relitigates a matter that has been finally determined. Based on the record before us, we conclude it does not.”]; See Goodrich v. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1263 [affirming vexatious litigant designation after the successive filing of three motions to vacate a final judgment where “[t]he trial court, after denying the second motion, admonished Goodrich that she could be declared a vexatious litigant ‘if similar unsubstantiated motions continue to be filed without any reasonable likelihood of success’”].)

Here, as this represents at most Plaintiff’s second attempt to relitigate the final determination of his dog-napping claim, there is insufficient basis to declare him a vexatious litigant.

The motion is therefore DENIED.