PATRINA HARRISON VS. WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA INC.

Matter on calendar for Monday, August 4, 2025, Line 5, PLAINTIFF PATRINA HARRISON's Motion For Waiver Of Security (Bond) For Indigent Vexatious Litigant Patrina Harrison.

1 - This court previously ordered plaintiff Patrina Harrison to post a security bond to proceed with her action against defendant Whole Foods Market California Inc. Harrison now moves the court to waive the effect of its order in light of her indigence. The court denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.

Harrison recites that she cannot afford the bond and would like to proceed with this case nonetheless. This is an issue she raised in her opposition to Whole Foods' motion to require her to post security. This untimely motion to reconsider presents no facts or circumstances that were not available to Harris to present in her opposition. Even considering this as a new motion instead of a motion to reconsider, the court finds the motion without merit.

An important legislative purpose underlying the vexatious litigant statutes is to "minimize the number of frivolous filings." (Devereaux v. Latham & Watkins (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1582 [disapproved on other grounds by Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP (2007) 40 Cal.4th 780].) The Legislature was likely aware that some vexatious litigants would be unable to post security but did not expressly include a means or indigency test in CCP 391.1(a), the security statute. Indeed, the Devereaux court noted the Legislature considered this issue. (Id. at p. 1587-1588.)

Thus, courts in exercising their discretion over the amount of an undertaking should look at the defendant's probable cost of defending the action, but are not required to consider a vexatious litigant's ability to post the bond. (Devereaux, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1588; see also McColm v. Westwood Park Ass'n (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1219 disapproved on other grounds by John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91].)

Plaintiff also challenges the constitutionality of the vexatious litigant statutes as applied to indigent litigants, but this argument has been considered and rejected by the appellate courts. (See, e.g., Moran, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 786.)

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) 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 contestdept301tr@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.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA). | |