Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: PC056141, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: PC056141    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 11-6-24

Case #PC056141

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.

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. On October 6, 2016, the court heard the first of six motions to vacate the underlying judgment on the action. The court specifically stated that Plaintiffs are barred from filing any “additional petitions, applications or motions” in this case.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate for hearing on September 19, 2017. The court denied the hearing on grounds that Plaintiffs failed to obtain leave from the presiding judge. On October 12, 2017, the presiding judge in Department 1 denied Plaintiffs motion for leave and instructed Plaintiffs that any motion for leave must be filed before the court entering the order declaring Plaintiffs vexatious litigants.

On October 23, 2017, the court specifically denied the motion for leave to file a motion to vacate and remove Plaintiffs from the vexatious litigant list. The court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to file a first amended complaint seeking $100 trillion dollars in damages on the same date. On December 21, 2017, Department 1 denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave. On January 17, 2019, April 4, 2019, August 28, 2019, October 16, 2019, January 13, 2020, and March 3, 2020, the court again denied the motions to vacate the judgment and remove Plaintiffs from the judicial council litigation list. Meanwhile, on February 24, 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs separate application for removal from the vexatious litigant list.

Notwithstanding the March 3, 2020 order barring any new applications until February 24, 2021, Plaintiffs again filed a request to vacate, etc. on March 12, 2020 and a second request on July 2, 2020. The court subsequently set an OSC: Sanctions and Striking the Application for October 22, 2020, but granted Plaintiffs an opportunity to withdraw petitions instead of appearing in court. The applications were withdrawn.

Plaintiff Judith Williams timely filed a renewed application for removal from the vexatious litigant list on February 26, 2021, which the court considered. The court denied the application and barred Plaintiffs from filing any renewed motion for removal from the vexatious litigant list until February 26, 2022. Notwithstanding the order, Plaintiffs filed additional motions which led to the imposition of sanctions in the amount of $500 against Plaintiffs on July 13, 2021.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside/vacate a judgment on February 14, 2022, which both violated the time frame set out in the prior order by more than one week, but also constituted a motion other than a request to be removed from the vexatious litigant list. On April 11, 2022, the motion was denied on this basis, and the court set another hearing for sanctions.

On March 8, 2023, application before Department 1, whereby the court directed Plaintiffs back to Department 49. On March 28, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal also dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal, due to their failure to obtain leave to file an appeal from the administrative presiding judge of the Appellate Court and then not submit any request in writing how their appeal was meritorious and not for the purpose of delay or harassment (remittitur filed on June 7, 2023).

Also on March 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed separate Applications for Order to Vacate Pre-filing Order and Removal from the Vexatious Litigant List. On April 11, 2023, the court first found the timing of the filing was premature in that it was filed before the April 11, 2023, opening date set from the hearing in 2021, but still elected to consider the petition given the order was filed on the one year anniversary date. The court again found no basis of relief, and set a new submission date of April 11, 2024.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On August 7, 2023, the Second District again dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal, due to their failure to obtain leave to file an appeal from the administrative presiding judge of the Appellate Court and then not submit any request in writing how their appeal was meritorious and not for the purpose of delay or harassment (remittitur filed on November 13, 2023). On November 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Applications for Order to Vacate Pre-filing Order and Removal from the Vexatious Litigant List. On November 22, 2023, the court first found the timing of the filing was premature in that it was filed before the April 11, 2024, opening date set from the prior hearing. The court set an OSC re: Striking the Applications and for Sanctions for February 6, 2024. Plaintiffs withdrew their applications prior to the hearing on November 28, 2023.

On November 29, 2023, and January 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed Amended Motions to Vacate. On February 13, 2024, the court again reiterated the April 11, 2024, renewed filing date.

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their latest Applications for removal from the Vexatious Litigant List. On July 10, 2024, Department 1, declined to consider the application, and directed the parties to Department 68. On August 21, 2024, the court specially set the hearing.

Plaintiffs are limited to seeking an order vacating the vexatious litigant designation and/or allowing the filing of a new motion. The previously considered motion included a 284 paragraph declaration providing a very detailed account regarding the subject action, including a description of the involvement of any and all person and entities, no matter how tangential, that interacted with or became involved some way with Mr. and Mrs. Williams dispute involving the 2004 Bentley vehicle.

The current application includes a four-page letter dated May 10, 2024, from The State Bar of California Office of Chief Trial Counsel addressed to Judith Brown-Williams. The State Bar reviewed the presented information and elected to close the complaint.

The court again reviews the standard for relief.

(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 court again finds no basis for removal of Plaintiffs from the vexatious litigant list. The record shows a 20-year history challenging the case in various trial courts and with the Second Appellate District. Plaintiffs have systematically sought removal from vexatious litigant list following the 2015 designation, frequently more than once a year. The court finds no new basis for relief. 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—November 6, 2025.

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 per year can constitute 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.)

Again, Plaintiffs remain barred from filing any application for removal from the vexatious litigant list until November 6, 2025—one year from the date of this rejected application.

Clerk to provide notice.