Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: BC342574, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: BC342574, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC342574 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 12-216-24 c/f 12-12-24

Case: BC342574

CLARIFICATION

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

RESPONDING PARTY: N/A

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Clarification of the April 27, 2009, Judgment

RULING: 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. Th 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.

On March 28, 2024, the court denied the motion to remove Alvin and Judith Williams from the vexatious litigant list. The order bars any renewed application for one year from the date of the order—March 28, 2025. On August 17, 2024, the court denied the “request for clarification” of the judgment, and instructed Plaintiffs no further action on the subject case can occur unless and until Plaintiffs are removed from the vexatious litigant list. Notwithstanding, on August 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the subject motion for clarification.

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).)

Again, the last motion was denied by the court on March 28, 2024. Plaintiffs may not seek relief until March 28, 2025. The subject motion is therefore improper and DENIED.

Clerk to provide notice.