Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: BC342574, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: BC342574, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC342574 Hearing Date: March 28, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 3-28-24

Case: BC342574

REMOVAL FROM VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST & PREFILING ORDER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Judith M. Brown-Williams and Alvin E. Williams

RESPONDING PARTY: N/A

RELIEF REQUESTED

Application for Order to Vacate Pre-filing Order and Removal from the Vexatious Litigant List

RULING: Denied.

Request for Judicial Notice: Denied.

On November 4, 2005, Plaintiffs Alvin and Judith Williams filed a complaint for Breach of Express Warranty/Statutory Duty, and Breach of Implied Warranty, against Bentley Motors, Inc and Rusnak Pasadena. On August 15, 2007, the court issued a statement of decision following a bench trial finding in favor of Defendants on the second cause of action for Breach of Implied Warranty. On September 2, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of Rusnak/Pasadena dba Bentley Pasadena (Rusnak).

On April 27, 2009, Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Bentley Motors, Inc., whereby Plaintiffs were ordered to either return the vehicle for a reimbursement from Bentley Motors, Inc., or pay $244,143 if Plaintiffs elected to retain the vehicle. The court denied the motion for new trial on June 26, 2009. On December 24, 2009, the court denied the motion to tax costs, thereby allowing Rusnak to recover $2,327.24.

Plaintiffs appealed the judgment. The judgment was affirmed in full on February 3, 2012 (remittitur filed on April 6, 2012).

On October 1, 2013, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs subsequently filed 170.6 challenges against Judge Mooney on February 25, 2015, which were rejected on March 3, 2015. On October 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed 1170.6 challenges against Judge Borenstein, which were accepted on October 2, 2015, thereby leading to assignment in to Judge Wintkow. On October 15, 2015, Judge Mooney rejected new 170.6 challenges.

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiffs in pro per filed a 200-paragraph complaint, with an additional 117 pages of exhibits (PC056141) for Fraud upon the Court arising from the judgment in the instant action. On May 5, 2015 and again on September 4, 2015, the court declared Plaintiffs vexatious litigants, thereby barring them from filing any new actions in the superior court without obtaining pre-filing leave of court. Also on May 5, 2015, the court issued prefiling orders for Plaintiffs to proceed with the action. The action was later dismissed.

Meanwhile, back on the original action, Department 1 denied Plaintiffs motion for nunc pro tunc entry of judgment on November 5, 2015. On March 10, 2016, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, entry of sister state judgment, and prefiling leave to file a new complaint. On Aril 14, 2016, the court again denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, and set an OSC re: Sanctions. On May 19, 2016, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motions to vacate judgment and reconsideration. The court also sanctioned Plaintiffs $3,000 ($1,500 per party). On June 14, 2016, the court denied the motion to quash the sanctions order. On August 4, 2016, the court denied the motion to vacate sanctions, and set another sanctions hearing. On September 16, 2016, the ocurt imposed an additional $2,000 in sanctions ($1,000 each).

On October 4, 2017, November 2, 2017, and December 14, 2017, the court again denied Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file an amended complaint in PC056141, to enter judgment, motion to vacate sanctions, and motion to enter a nunc pro tunc judgment. On January 18, 2018, Plaintiffs were again sanctioned $3,000. On January 28, 3019, the court denied Plantiffs’ motion to vacate the vexatious litigant designation, provide leave for a pre-filing order, and grant leave to file an amended judgment. On November 4, 2020, and May 27, 2022, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motions to vacate the judgment and file new litigation. On June 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a third 170.6 challenge against Judge Mooney, which was denied. On September 1, 2023, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend judgment. On September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed 170.6 challenges to Judge Stern, which was also denied.

Plaintiffs bring another set of motions for removal from the vexatious litigant list. The court considers both applications in this order. The court reviews the rules applicable to vexatious litigants.

(a) A vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 391.7 may file an application to vacate the prefiling order and remove his or her name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders. The application shall be filed in the court that entered the prefiling order, either in the action in which the prefiling order was entered or in conjunction with a request to the presiding justice or presiding judge to file new litigation under Section 391.7. The application shall be made before the justice or judge who entered the order, if that justice or judge is available. If that justice or judge who entered the order is not available, the application shall be made before the presiding justice or presiding judge, or his or her designee.

(b) A vexatious litigant whose application under subdivision (a) was denied shall not be permitted to file another application on or before 12 months has elapsed after the date of the denial of the previous application.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 391.8, subds. (a-b).)

“The clerk may not file any litigation presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the vexatious litigant first obtains an order from the … presiding judge permitting the filing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (c).) For purposes of this section, ‘litigation’ includes any petition, application, or motion…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (d).)

The last motion heard by the court was on a motion to amend the judgment on September 1, 2023. The motion was denied the motion on the merits. Since the prior court declined to address the vexatious litigant rules, the court declines to find the subject motion itself constituted an earlier motion to seek relief, and therefore a violation of the rule regarding a renewed application less than 12 months from the prior rejection. Any prior motion for removal from the vexatious litigant designation list was more than 12 months prior to the subject hearing.

As for the subject motion, Plaintiffs continue to challenge the prior cases, including claims of collusion by the former judicial officer among others. Plaintiffs also maintain the vexatious litigant classification constitutes a defamatory designation.

Bentley Motors, Inc. and Rusnak/Pasadena filed oppositions to the motions reiterates the extensive history and repeated efforts to relitigate the action following the 2009 judgment. Defendants next maintain the motion is both jurisdictionally barred and premature. Defendants also acknowledge the November 4, 2020, excusive Defendants from responding to said motions, but filed a response in “an abundance of caution.”

Alvin and Judith Williams in reply reiterate the corrupt practices and racketeering allegations against defendants.

The court finds no basis for Plaintiffs to vacate the underlying judgment, bring a new action, or justify removal from the vexatious litigant list. Plaintiffs admit to challenging the judgment and action for past 20 years in various trial courts and with the Second Appellate District. The court therefore orders that Plaintiffs remain barred from any new filing with the court on any case or claim. Plaintiffs will also remain on the vexatious litigant list. Plaintiffs may file a renewed application for removal from the vexatious litigant list one year from the date of this order.

If Plaintiffs violate this order in filing ANY new motions within one year from the date of this order, a new hearing for sanctions will be set for each and every violation. Continuous and systematic challenge to the prior judgment and violation of the order barring more than one application for removal from the vexatious litigant list constitutes a basis for the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions may be imposed even after judgment has been entered in a case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 177.5; See e.g. Day v. Collingwood (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1125-26.)

Accordingly, the court sets an OSC re: Sanctions for the March 19, 2024 filed and April 15, 2024, scheduled Hearing on Writ of Execution for Final Judgment. Mr. Alvin E. Williams and Mrs. Judith M. Brown-Williams are hereby ordered to appear at a hearing in Department 68 on July 15, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why they should not be sanctioned pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7(b), (c)(2) and 177.5 in an amount up to $1,500 each for their repeated filing of frivolous motions, applications, and arguments in this department. Plaintiffs may appear at the hearing via LACourtConnect by telephonic or video conference.

The court continues the hearing on the Writ of Execution to the same date of July 15, 2024. Plaintiffs have a 21-day plus window from the date of service of the subject order to withdraw the March 19, 2024, filed Writ. If Plaintiffs withdraw the Writ no later than June 24, 2024, and notify the clerk of the said withdrawal, the court will discharge the OSC and take July 15, 2024, hearing off-calendar. If the applications are not withdrawn by Friday June 24, 2024, the court will conduct the hearing whether Plaintiffs appear or not, and may impose sanctions. The court may also still strike the Writ upon the conclusion of the sanctions hearing.

Clerk to provide notice.