Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV44756, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44756    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 8, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jane Doe

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS GRANTED. THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A BOND IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles, asserting claims for injunctive relief and possession of personal property. Plaintiff alleges Defendant wrongfully confiscated Plaintiff’s phone data.

ANALYSIS

CCP § 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.

(CCP § 391(b).)

Defendant County of Los Angeles moves to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant under CCP §§ 391(b)(1),(4). The County also requests that Plaintiff be ordered to post a $100,000.00 bond.

Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant in Orange County in April 2024 because of extensive litigation against a man Plaintiff briefly dated. Defendant contends that the scenario is similar here; Plaintiff has filed and maintained at least six litigations in the last seven years which were decided adversely against Plaintiff, including 5 appeals. “Litigations” for the purpose of CCP § 391(b)(1) “means any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained or pending in any state or federal court.” (CCP § 391(a).) “Litigation” also includes adversely decided appeals. (See e.g. Fink v. Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173-4.) The Court finds that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant per CCP § 391(b).

In opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute that she is a vexatious litigant. Instead, Plaintiff, through newly obtained counsel, argues the Court should deny Defendant’s request to post a bond. Plaintiff asserts that she has valid claims resulting from Defendant’s improper retention of her phone data.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. But the Court declines to require Plaintiff to post a bond at this time. Plaintiff is now represented by counsel and has cognizable claims against Defendants.

Defendant’s motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant is GRANTED. The request to post a bond is DENIED.