Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV10042, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV10042 Hearing Date: December 11, 2023 Dept: 39
Brendan Schultz v.
Pitzer College
Case No.
23STCV10042
Motion to Declare
Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Brendan Schultz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Pitzer College
(“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for civil rights violations,
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, breaches of
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional
and negligent misrepresentation, false promise, willful and reckless
misconduct, and gross and ordinary negligence.
The gravamen of Plaintiff’s case is straightforward: He alleges that he
was not awarded the Davis Alumni Award in retaliation for having filed complaints
for disability and religious discrimination.
Now, Defendant moves for an order declaring Plaintiff to be a vexatious
litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, et seq., an order requiring
Plaintiff to furnish security, and an order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing
any new litigation without leave of the Court.
The motion is denied without prejudice.
LEGAL STANDARD
A
“vexatious litigant” is a person who “[i]n the immediately proceeding
seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria personal
at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been [] finally
determined adversely to the person . . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 391(b)(1).) A
“vexatious litigant” also includes a person who “[a]fter 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 against whom the litigation was finally
determined.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
391(b)(2).)
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendant
seeks judicial notice of various court records.
The Court grants the request under Evidence Code section 452(4).
DISCUSSION
The Court previously
denied this motion without prejudice.
(See Court’s Minute Order, dated September 11, 2023.) The Court ruled in sum as follows:
“Defendant’s motion is denied
without prejudice because Defendant’s counsel does not establish that Plaintiff
litigated five cases as a self-represented party within the past seven years
resulting in final adverse decisions against him. Nor does Defendant’s counsel
establish a pattern of relitigating issues or engaging in litigation for
purposes of harassment. All of the cases cited by Defendant involve different
allegations.”
(Id., p. 2.)
Defendant’s counsel’s renewed motion still does not address these
issues.
First,
Defendant’s counsel cannot identify five non-small claims court cases in which
Plaintiff was an unsuccessful self-represented litigant. The Court identifies only the following three
qualifying cases from Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice:
1. Brendan Schultz v. Pomona College, Case
Number 21PSCV01085 – The Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the third
amended complaint in its entirety and as to all causes of action without leave
to amend in 2023. (See Request for
Judicial Notice, Exh. #8.) The Court
entered a judgment in favor of Defendant and against Shultz. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. #23.) The record makes clear that Schultz was a
self-represented party.
2. Brendan Schultz v. State of Hawaii,
Case Number 21-CV-00443-JAO-RT – The Court dismissed Schultz’s complaint and
entered a judgment against him in 2021.
(See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. #1 & #2.) The record makes clear that Schultz was a
self-represented party.
3. Brendan Schultz v. United States
Department of State, Case Number 22-CV-00059-LWK-WRP – The Court dismissed Shultz’s
complaint and entered a judgment against him in 2023. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. #7
& 22.) The record makes clear that Schultz
was a self-represented party.
The remaining cases do not satisfy the
requirements. As discussed in the
Court’s prior order, many of the cases at issue are small claims court cases,
which do not satisfy the requirements of section 391(b)(1). Defendant’s counsel relies on numerous
complaints that initiated unlimited civil actions in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court. Defendant’s counsel
provides no evidence that these cases—Case Numbers 23STCV07126, 21STCV18241,
22PSCV00987, 22STCV37626, 23STCV11328, 23STCV15111, 22STCV37034, and 21STCV18469—were
decided against Schultz. For the reasons
discussed in the Court’s prior order, the Court cannot conclude that these
cases are meritless on their face. Nor
can the Court conclude that Plaintiff seeks to relitigate issues or
unnecessarily prolonged the litigation in those cases.
Defendant’s
counsel relies on Brendan Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship
Foundation, et al., Case Number 20-CV-4058-MMC.
(See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. #16 & 21.) However, Defendant provides no evidence that
this case has been decided adversely to Schultz on the merits. Rather, Defendant’s counsel relies on an
order striking a motion for leave to amend, which does not satisfy the
statute. The Court cannot conclude that
the judge’s admonishment satisfies the statute.
Defendant’s
counsel relies on Brendan Schultz v. Irena Taylor, Case Number 1DSS-22-128, in
which Schultz filed an action to seek a restraining order against his landlord
on February 2, 2022. (See Request for
Judicial Notice, Exh. #5.) The court
denied application, finding that Schultz did not sufficiently allege
harassment. (Ibid.) Two days later, on February 4, 2022, Schultz
re-filed the application. (Id., Exh.
#6.) The court again denied the
application, finding that Schultz did not sufficiently allege harassment. (Ibid.)
However, it is unclear whether these orders constitute final decisions
on the merit for the reasons articulated by Plaintiff. Nor is it clear that these proceedings are
sufficiently distinct from Schultz’s landlord’s action against him (Irena
Taylor v. Brendan Schultz, Case Number IDRC-21-0009254) as to constitute
separate cases for purposes of section 391(b)(1). In other words, both Case Number IDSS-22-128
and Case Number IDRC-21-0009254 may constitute only one “litigation” for purposes
of section 391(b)(1). Given the gravity
of the remedy under section 391(b)(1), the Court must interpret ambiguities in
favor of the non-moving party.
In sum,
Defendant’s counsel’s motion is premature, as he identifies three (maybe four)
litigations that were decided adversely to Schultz who was acting as a
self-represented party. Plaintiff has eight
other unlimited civil cases pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
and one other case pending in a federal court.
Defendant’s counsel may re-file this motion once there are final
decisions against Plaintiff in at least two of these cases (or another case
that satisfies the statute).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon
the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. Defendant’s motion to declare Plaintiff
to be a vexatious litigant is denied.
2. This order is without prejudice to
Defendant re-filing this motion.
However, the Court will not consider the motion unless Defendant
identifies two additional cases from Plaintiff’s eight unlimited civil cases
pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, or the case still pending in
federal court (or another case that satisfies the statute).
3. Defendant’s counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of such with the Court.