DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CPF24518803·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 7 months agoHearing required. The Court has requested supplemental briefing to be filed by the Petitioner.

367 CHURCH STREET HOA VS. SHANE DUNNE ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Have Shane Dunne Adjudged A Vexatious Litigant, For Requirement To Post Security, And For A Prefiling Order

Hearing date
Feb 4, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

Plaintiff367 CHURCH STREET HOA
DefendantSHANE DUNNE

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CPF24518803 - February 4, 2026 Hearing date: February 4, 2026 Case number: CPF24518803 Case title: 367 CHURCH STREET HOA VS. SHANE DUNNE ET AL Case Number: | | CPF24518803 | Case Title: | | 367 CHURCH STREET HOA VS. SHANE DUNNE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-04 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Have Shane Dunne Adjudged A Vexatious Litigant, For Requirement To Post Security, And For A Prefiling Order | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 4, 2026 line 1. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO HAVE SHANE DUNNE ADJUDGED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, FOR REQUIREMENT TO POST SECURITY AND FOR A PREFILING ORDER.

Hearing required. The Court has requested supplemental briefing to be filed by the Petitioner. Petitioner was seeking to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant. The Court requested authority responsive to 2 distinct issues and allowed the Petitioner to cite cases involving not only a "respondent" on a petition, but also a "defendant" is a general civil case.

Supplemental brief was filed on January 26, 2026 with a list of cases purportedly responsive to the Court's inquiry. Counsel for petitioner to appear for the hearing in-person, with hard copies of all cases cited in the supplemental brief (except In re Marriage of Deal, 45 Cal.App.5th 613). Counsel shall highlight passages declaring the defendant/respondent a vexations litigant at the trial level in each case (e.g. passage declaring The Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. in Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist., 112 Cal.App.5th 1300); and, if the case involved a pre-filing order against a defendant/respondent, those passages to be highlighted too.

Petitioner's unauthorized declaration filed on January 26, 2026 is stricken. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252]. Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear. | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share