Order After Hearing POSCal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 1, 2021OOOOxlmLh-Pb-JNH NNNNNNNNN-‘HHHH-au-p-a-nn- OO‘JONUlfiLQNHOKOOO‘JGLA#mN-I FEB U7 ZUZZ Wamgégfigf G 1.10%}? ECPBUTYIfi SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA EDWARD JENKINS Case No. 21CV378983 Plamnffi ORDER 0N MOTION T0 DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (ccp §391(b)(1)). VS. HOMEFIRST SERVICES OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY et a1, Defendants. This matter was before the Court on January 25, 2022 for a motion by Defendants to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant and to order the posting of a security. The Court posted its tentative ruling pursuant t0 California Rule of Court 3.1308 0n January 24, 2022. The tentative ruling was not contested. The matter having been submitted 0n the tentative ruling, the Court issues its final ruling as follows: BACKGROUND Before the Court is the Motion 0f Defendants t0 have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant and t0 order Plaintiffto post a security to proceed with his lawsuit. Plaintiff opposes the 1 Case No. 2ICV378983 Order Re: Motion to Declare Plaintiffa Vexatious Litigant (CCP §391(b)(])) [\J OKOOOQOxlll-bw NNNMNNNNN--.-a-aH-o--#H.- OONQLAQLAN#O\OOONC\M#DJNI- Motion on procedural grounds because Defendants previously sought to bring this motion ex parte and the motion was denied. Plaintiff opposes the Motion substantively on the grounds that Defendants have not met their burden ofproof for obtaining relief. The Court previously denied Defendants’ request that this matter be heard on an ex part6 basis. Finding no immediate danger or irreparable harm, the Court denied ex parte relief. Defendants refiled their application as a noticed motion. The Court finds no fault with Defendant in that regard. The Court therefore will consider whether Defendants meet their burden ofproof. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard A court may declare a person a vexatious litigant who, “[i]n 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 (i) finally determined adversely to the person 0r (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought t0 trial 0r hearing” (CCP §39l(b)(1)). “The vexatious litigant statutes were created t0 curb misuse 0fthe court system by those acting in propria persona who repeatedly file groundless lawsuits 0r attempt to relitigate issues previously determined against them. [Citations.] These statutes allow a defendant in a litigation to move for an order requiring the plaintiffto furnish security 0n the‘ground the plaintiffis a vexatious litigant and has n0 reasonable probability ofprevailing against the moving defendant. [Citation] If, after a hearing, the court finds for the defendant 0n these points, it must order the plaintiff t0 furnish security. [Citation] Ifthe plaintiff does not d0 so, the action will be terminated. [Citati0n.]” (Goodrich v. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1265 (Goodrich).) “When considering a motion t0 declare a litigant vexatious, the court must weigh the evidence to decide whether the litigant is vexatious based on the statutory criteria and whether the litigant has a reasonable probability 0f prevailing. [Citation.] To be declared a vexatious Case No. 21CV378983 Order Re: Motion to Declare Plaintiffa Vexatious Litigant (CCP §391(b)(1)) .- OKOOOVQUIJALHN NNNNNNNNN---o--H.-_-H-n.-n mfiam-wa-‘OKDOOMONLH§wM-I litigant, the plaintiffmust come within one ofthe definitions 0f [Code 0f Civil Procedure] section 391, subdivision (b). [Citation.]” (Goodrich, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1265.) On this point, the Sixth Appellate District’stated: “Any determination that a litigant is vexatious must comport with the intent and spirit 0f the vexatious litigant statute. The purpose 0f which is to address the problem created by the persistent and obsessive litigant who constantly has pending a number 0f groundless actions and whose conduct causes serious financial results to the unfortunate objects of his or her attacks and places an unreasonable burden on the courts. [Citations.] Therefore, t0 find that a litigant is vexatious, the trial court must conclude that the litigant[‘]s actions are unreasonably impacting the objects ofappellant’s actions and the courts as contemplated by the statute.” (Morton V. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 970-971 (Morton).) \ Evidence Code section 452(d), provides that the Court may takejudicial notice of “[r]ecords ofany court of this state.” Section 452(d) permits the trial court to “take judicial notice 0fthe existence ofjudicial opinions and court documents, along With the truth ofthe results reached-in the documents such as orders, statements 0f decision, andjudgments ....” When the adverse party is given sufficient notice 0fthe request forjudicial notice, and the party seeking such notice furnishes the court with sufficient information t0 enable it to take judicial notice, “[t]he trial court shall takejudicia] notice” ofany matter specified in Evidence Code section 452 ifa party so requests. Evid. Code §453 B. Analysis Defendants ask the Court t0 takejudicial notice 0fthe following matters filed in the Superior Court OfCalifomia, County ofSanta Clara: E. Jenkins v. Michael O’Flannigan (2014-1-CV-27501 1); E. Jenkins v. Michelle Floyd (2014-1-CV-275009); E. Jenkins v. M Floyd (2015-1-CV-286285); Street Snacks Inc. ct a1. v. James Curtis, et a]. (16CV301 128); Edward Jenkins v. Edward Howard (16CV301 642); and Edward Jenkins V. Leandra Jordan (20CV371 068). Court files are proper subjects forjudicial notice. The request is GRANTED. The records shows that in the immediately preceding seven (7) years from April 2014 t0 present, Plaintiffhas had five litigations that were either closed or dismissed for Plaintiff‘s failure to appear or failure t0 serve the complaint. In that sense, Plaintiff has had these cases 3 Case No. 21 CV378983 Order Re: Motion to Declare Plaintiffa Vexatious Litigant {CCP §391(b)(1)) Ln-hbJN O\DOO*~IO\ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 decided adversely to him. However, the Court is not bound to make a finding that these dismissals alone are sufficient to declare Plaintiffa vexatious litigant. The Court must still consider whether the fact of these dismissals is enough to establish that Plaintiff falls into the category 0f the “persistent and obsessive litigant who constantly has pending a number of groundless actions and whose conduct causes serious financial results to the unfortunate objects of his or her attacks and places an unreasonable burden on the courts.” It is concerning that Plaintiff has had multiple cases dismissed and the Court can understand why Defendants have made this motion. However, based 0n the documents provided, it would appear that it was primarily the Plaintiff’s time and the Court’s time that was wasted on the majority ofthese cases. The Court does not downplay the needless expense incurred by the public when parties fail t0 appear at hearings and burden the Court with lawsuits that are filed and ultimately g0 nowhere. However, based 0n what is before the Court at this time, the Court is not prepared to find that Plaintiff has placed so great a burden on the Court that he [should be declared a vexatious litigant. The motion is DENIED. Because Defendant does not meet the first prong ofthe test under CCP §391(b)(1), the Court does not reach the question of whether or not there is a reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the moving Defendant under CCP §391.1. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions. The Court finds n0 basis for granting sanctions. Plaintiff‘s request is DENIED. /Dated: FEB 04 2922 llieflhr-istop’h/erGW Judge 0fthe Superio ' rt Case N0. 21CV378983 Order Re: Motion t0 Declare Plaintiffa Vexatious Litigant (CCP §391(b)(1)) SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA g Em E w . COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 191 NORTH FIRSTSrREET SAN]0$E,CAL1FORNLA 95113 H's U I 2022 CIVIL DIVISION CIerk-FQ gqunmSuperiorflm fif BY DEPUTY RE: Edward Jenkins vs Homefirst Services of Santa Clara County et al Case Number: 21CV378983 PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER 0N MOTION T0 DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP391 (b)(1) was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below. If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the Amen‘can with Disabilities A01, please contact the Coun Administrator's office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court‘s TDD line (408) 882-2690 or the Voice/TDD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922. DECLARATION 0F SERVICE BY MAIL: I decrare that | served this notice by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope. addressed to each person whose name Is shown below, and by depositing the envelope with postage fu1ly prepaid. in the United Staies Mail at San Jose, CA on February 07. 2022. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Richelre Belligan, Deputy. cc: Edward Charles Jenkins PO Box 164 San Jose CA 95103 Ashley Nicole Meyers CLAPP MORONEY VUCINICH BEEMAN+SCHELEY 5860 Owens Drive Suite 410 PLEASANTON CA 94588 CW-QOZ'I' REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE
