CHIKODI CHIMA VS. JOHN DAVID PERKINS

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Monday, March 09, 2026, Line 7.

1 - Defendant John Perkins's unopposed motion to declare Plaintiff Chikodi Chima a vexatious litigant is DENIED. Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted. (See Evidence Code 452(d).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b) defines a "vexatious litigant," among other things, as a person who: (2) After litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined. (3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

Plaintiff here filed his complaint on December 9, 2024. On March 11, 2025, the court granted Defendant's special motion to strike the entire complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute ("SLAPP motion"). Prior to the hearing on the SLAPP motion, Plaintiff filed several procedurally deficient ex parte motions to no avail. After the anti-SLAPP order, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion to vacate the order and a motion for summary judgment. (Plaintiff also filed a motion to amend his stricken complaint, but he later withdrew this motion.) Plaintiff also filed a meritless motion to disqualify the undersigned.

After a review of the record, the court does not find that Defendant has shown Plaintiff should be found vexatious under section 391. The record also demonstrates Plaintiff has continued to subpoena privileged records from Defendant in the action from which this case arises, Chima v. Liss, FPT-19-377669, a family court proceeding. These additional facts do not, however, tip the scales on the vexatious litigant question. Notably, the discovery rules provide many means by which discovery abuse or misconduct can be addressed.

Prior to the hearing, Defendant shall lodge by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order repeating the above verbatim.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.