Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 18STCV10177, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 18STCV10177    Hearing Date: June 27, 2024    Dept: 1

18STCV10177 YOUNG CHOW DAI vs PAUL P. CHENG & ASSOCIATES, et al.

Plaintiff’s Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant

RULING: Young Chow Dai’s Motion for Order: Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant Form VL-110 is DENIED.  Clerk to give notice.

On December 31, 2018, Young Chow Dai filed 18STCV10177 against Paul P. Cheng & Associates, Paul Cheng, and Marsha S. Mao. On June 2, 2022, the court entered a minute order dismissing Defendant Mao. On June 22, 2022, the court entered an order of dismissal as to Defendant Paul P. Cheng & Associates.

On August 8, 2023, the court entered the order for entry of summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendant, Paul P. Cheng.

On April 8, 2024, Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong formally declared Young Chow Dai a vexatious litigant in Los Angeles Superior Court case 18STCV10154 Dai v. Feldman & Rothstein, P.C. Under this order, Dai became subject to a Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 prefiling requirement that requires Dai to obtain the permission of the presiding judge to file new litigation. Permission is granted only if it appears the litigation has merit and is not being filed for purposes of harassment or delay. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(b).) In the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Presiding Judge has designated the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division (sitting in Dept. 1) to exercise this authority and responsibility. (See Code Civ. Proc. 391.7(e).)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper. A request to file new litigation by a vexatious litigant is not made pursuant to a noticed motion and Dai is not entitled to a hearing on the request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7.)

Additionally, a request to file new litigation should not be filed in an existing case. In the Los Angeles Superior Court, vexatious litigants should submit their requests to file new litigation at the filing window in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The documents will then be forwarded to Department 1 and be addressed in due course.

Moreover, Dai’s request is insufficient to demonstrate any proposed new litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(b).) When requesting leave to file new litigation, the litigant must provide a copy of the proposed pleading to be filed as well as evidence supporting the claims asserted therein. Though Dai’s submission refers to a “formal complaint and supporting exhibit evidence,” (Mot. at 4), Dai’s submission is not accompanied by a proposed complaint or evidence supporting the claims asserted.

Accordingly, the motion and request are DENIED.