Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV23893, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV23893 Hearing Date: February 26, 2025 Dept: 45
DEWEY DEMETRO, JR. V. EVA CARAEURE
MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Date of Hearing: February 26, 2025 Trial Date: None set.
Department: 45 Case
No.: 24STCV23893
Moving
Party: Defendant Eva
Carachure, Court Services Assistant III, Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as Eva Caraeure)
Responding
Party: Plaintiff Dewey Demetro Jr.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from the alleged rejection of entries of
default pertaining to a court proceeding. The Complaint in this action is set
forth on pleading paper and is handwritten. The Complaint does not set forth
any identifiable causes of action. Some of Plaintiff’s penmanship is illegible.
Plaintiff is currently self-represented.
On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff Dewey Demetro Jr.
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Eva Carachure, Court Services
Assistant III, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (erroneously
sued as Eva Caraeure) (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that “[s]ince the past 3
years[,] [Plaintiff] has been filing entry for (sic) default but always
rejected . . . .” (Compl., p. 2:1-3.)
On October 8, 2024, Defendant filed a Demurrer to the
Complaint, which is currently set for hearing on April 2, 2025.
On October 29, 2024, Defendant filed and served the instant
Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §
391.1. Defendant seeks an order
“declaring [P]laintiff Dewey Demetro, Jr. a vexatious litigant . . .
prohibiting [P]laintiff Dewey Demetro, Jr. from filing any new lawsuits in
propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the
court where the litigation is proposed to be filed . . . and . . . requiring
[P]laintiff Dewey Demetro Jr. to furnish security in this matter.” (Not. of
Mot. at p. 2:8-12.)
On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed what purports to be an
opposition to the motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Such
document consists of a one-page document entitled “Evidence” which merely
states that he is not a vexatious litigant and “the world’s biggest black
sireal (sic) killer is a cop” whom is “still killing complaints to the
California Bar Association.” (See 11/18/24 Opposition at p. 1.) Attached to
such document are eight pages of unauthenticated documents which include
documents including, but not limited to, screenshots of news articles
pertaining to police brutality and police misconduct. (See 11/18/24
Opposition.)
There is no proof of service attached to the opposition.
Moreover, the opposition cites to no legal authority. Due to the lack of a
proof of service, the Court assumes that Defendant was not properly served the
purported opposition. Plaintiff was required to serve the opposition on
Defendant at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1005, subd. (b).)
On December 26, 2024, this action was reassigned from the
Honorable Mel Red Recana to the Honorable Virginia Keeny sitting in Department
45 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse effective January 3, 2025. Plaintiff was ordered
to give notice. Based on a review of the court file, there is no proof of
service filed showing that Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant of the
reassignment of this action.
As of February 21, 2025, no reply brief has been filed.
[Tentative] Ruling
The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Declare
Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to declare Plaintiff a
vexatious litigant. The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for the entry of
a prefiling order.
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s request that
Plaintiff be required to furnish security in this matter.
LEGAL
STANDARD
The vexatious litigant statute “provides a procedure in
pending litigation for declaring a person a vexatious litigant, and establishes
procedure strictures that can be imposed on vexatious litigants.” (In re
Bittaker (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008.) A court may “issue a prefiling
order that prohibits the vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation
without first obtaining permission of the presiding judge of the court where
the litigation is proposed to be filed.” (Ibid.) “The vexatious litigant
statute . . . was enacted . . . to curb misuse of the court system by those
acting in propria persona who repeatedly litigate the same issues.” (Ibid.)
“Their abuse of the system not only wastes court time and resources but also
prejudices other parties waiting their turn before the courts.” (Ibid.)
“The prefiling order component of the vexatious litigant statute is a necessary
method of curbing those for whom litigation has become a game.” (In re
Natural Gas Antitrust Cases (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 387, 394.) “It does not
deny the vexatious litigant access to the courts, but operates to preclude
meritless litigation and the attendant expenditure of resources.” (Ibid.)¿¿
“A court may declare a person to be a vexatious litigant
who, in the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted,
or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a
small claims court that have been . . . finally determined adversely to the
person . . . .” (Garcia v. Lacey (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 402, 406,
quoting CCP § 391(b)(1).) “The term [l]itigation is defined broadly as any
civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained or pending in any state or
federal court.” (Ibid., internal quotations omitted.) “A litigation is
finally determined adversely to a plaintiff if he does not win the action or
proceeding he began, including cases that are voluntarily dismissed by a
plaintiff.” (Ibid.)
ANALYSIS
Procedural
Violations
Here,
Plaintiff has failed to serve the opposition on Defendant. CCP § 1005(b)
requires that all opposition papers be filed and served at least nine court
days prior to the hearing.
Also,
the opposition is void of any citations to legal authority. The Court informs
Plaintiff that “[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them
with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Moulton Niguel Water
Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.) The Court acknowledges
that Plaintiff is representing himself in pro per. However, pro per
“litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v.
Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)
Moreover,
none of the documents attached to the opposition have been properly
authenticated nor has a foundation been laid for such exhibits through a
declaration.
Request
for Judicial Notice
Defendant
requests that the Court take judicial notice of various court records in 32
actions filed by Plaintiff. (See RJN at pp. 1-4.)
The
Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins.
Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374.) However, the “court will not
consider the truth of the document’s contents unless it is an order, statement
of decision, or judgment.” (Id. at p. 374-375.)
Plaintiff
Should be Declared a Vexatious Litigant
Defendant
presents evidence, through the declaration of her counsel, Lindsay N.
Frazier-Krane (“Frazier-Krane”), that Plaintiff has initiated 32 civil actions
since February 24, 2022. (Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 2-33; Exhs. 1-33.)
Defendant
has presented evidence that the following eight actions were commenced by
Plaintiff within the immediately preceding seven-year period, and that such
actions were determined adversely to Plaintiff:
On
February 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Dewey Demetro, Jr. v.
Mica Ray, et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV06849, which was dismissed
without prejudice on October 19, 2022 due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a
proof of service. (See RJN at Exhs. 1, 35; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 2,
37 and Exhs. 1, 35.)
On
November 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Dewey Demetro, Jr.
v. Mica Ray, LASC Case No. 22STCV36360, which was dismissed without
prejudice on December 21, 2023 due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a proof of
service. (See RJN at Exhs. 5, 36; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 6, 36 and
Exhs. 5, 36.)
On
December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Dewey Demetro, Jr.
v. State Capitol The State of California, LASC Case No. 22STCV38739, which
was dismissed without prejudice on April 30, 2024 due to Plaintiff’s failure to
appear and for delay in prosecution. (See RJN at Exhs. 7, 37; see also
Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 8, 38 Exhs. 7, 37.)
On
August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Dewey Demetro, Jr. v. L A
Fitness Managers, LASC Case No. 23STCV20119, which was dismissed without
prejudice on January 29, 2024 due to Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve
defendant. (See RJN at Exhs. 10, 38; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 11, 39
and Exhs. 10, 38.)
On
September 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Dewey Demetro, Jr. v.
Spring Street Courthouse Dept. 32 Clerk of Court, LASC Case No.
23STCV21683, which was dismissed by the Court on October 31, 2023, with
prejudice, on the grounds that the complaint was meritless on its face pursuant
to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court noticed on its own
motion. (See RJN at Exhs. 12, 40-41; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 13, 41-42
and Exhs. 12, 40-41.)
On
September 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Dewey Demetro, Jr. v.
EBE, et al., LASC Case No. 23STCV22019, which was dismissed by the Court on
October 31, 2023, with prejudice, on the grounds that the complaint was
meritless on its face pursuant to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which
the Court noticed on its own motion. (See RJN at Exhs. 14, 42; see also
Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 15, 43 and Exhs. 14, 42.)
On
October 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Dewey Demetro v. Yoka
Smith LLC, LASC Case No. 23STCV25408, which was dismissed by the Court on February
16, 2024, without prejudice, on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to file a
proof of service and failed to file a declaration as to why the case should not
be dismissed. (See RJN at Exhs. 17, 44; see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 18, 45
and Exhs. 17, 44.)
On
January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a civil action in Dewey Demetro Jr. v. Peter
The Landlord, LASC Case No. 24STCV00441, which was dismissed by the Court
on May 1, 2024, without prejudice, pursuant to CCP § 1167.1. (See RJN at Exhs. 22,45;
see also Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶¶ 23, 46 and Exhs. 17, 45.)
Based
on the evidence presented by Defendant, the Court finds it appropriate that Plaintiff
be declared a vexatious litigant. Here, Defendant has presented evidence that,
within the past three years, Plaintiff has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained
eight civil actions which were determined adversely to Plaintiff. The Court
deems the aforementioned actions as concluding in an adverse determination as
all the actions were dismissed. The Court finds that Plaintiff is a vexatious
litigant within the meaning
of
Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b)(1).
The
Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s request to deem Plaintiff a vexatious
litigant.
A
Prefiling Order is Appropriate
“[T]he
court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling
order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in
the courts of this state in propria person without first obtaining leave of the
presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is
proposed to be filed. Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be
punished as a contempt of court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (a).) “The
clerk of the court shall provide the Judicial Council a copy of any prefiling
orders issued pursuant to subdivision (a).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd.
(f).)
Defendant
requests that, along with being declared a vexatious litigant, a prefiling
order be entered to prohibit Plaintiff from filing frivolous lawsuits. Given
that Plaintiff has commenced a total of 32 actions since February of 2022, and
eight of those actions have been adversely determined against Plaintiff, the
Court finds it appropriate to enter a prefiling order.
The
Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s request to enter a prefiling order.
Defendant
Has Not Shown that Plaintiff Should be Required to Furnish Security
“In
any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until final
judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon notice and hearing,
for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or for an order
dismissing the litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 391.3.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 391.1, subd. (a).) “The motion for an order requiring the
plaintiff to furnish security shall be based upon the ground, and supported by
a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a
reasonable probability that they will prevail in the litigation against the
moving defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.1, subd. (a).)
Here,
the Court finds that Defendant has not made a showing that there is not a
reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail in the litigation. Attorney
Frazier-Krane provided declarations in support of the motion and the request
for judicial notice. The declaration in support of the motion only states that
it is estimated that the instant action will cost Defendant $25,000.00 in
attorney’s fees and costs to defend. (Frazier-Krane Decl., ¶ 2.)
While
the memorandum of points and authorities argues that Plaintiff is not likely to
prevail in this action (Motion at p. 8:9-16), Defendant has not made a showing
through admissible evidence that such fact is true. The Court finds that the
Complaint is incomprehensible and only alleges that Defendant rejected defaults
filed by Plaintiff within the last three years. Although the Court believes
that the Complaint is severely deficient on its face, such fact is immaterial.
Defendant must make a proper showing under CCP § 391.1. Defendant is informed
that “[i]n law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court
by way of declarations.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997)
53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)
Defendant’s
request that Plaintiff furnish security is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s
Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to declare Plaintiff a
vexatious litigant. The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for the entry of
a prefiling order.
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s request that
Plaintiff be required to furnish security in this matter.