SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 16D

signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Terra Nova Counseling’s (“Defendant”) motion to declare Plaintiff in pro per James Sandford (“Plaintiff”) a “vexatious litigant” is ruled on as follows.

Defendant requests an order declaring Plaintiff to be a “vexatious litigant,” requiring Plaintiff to furnish security in order to continue this lawsuit, and requiring Plaintiff to obtain a pre-filing order before commencing any additional lawsuits in California Courts. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Legal Standard

The purpose of the “vexatious litigant” statute is to address the problems created by the “persistent and obsessive litigant” who causes “serious financial results to the unfortunate objects of his or her attacks and places an unreasonable burden on the courts.” (In re Kinney (2011) 201

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 16D

Cal.App.4th 951, 958; Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 970-971.) The “vexatious litigant” statutes were enacted to restrain misuse of the legal system by self-represented parties.

Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b) provides that a “vexatious litigant” is a person who falls within any one or more of five different statutorily defined categories set forth in subdivisions (b)(1) through (b)(5). (Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b).) As a generalized overview, “[v]exatious litigant is defined in section 391 subdivision (b) as a person who has, while acting in propria persona, initiated or prosecuted numerous meritless litigations, relitigated or attempted to relitigate matters previously determined against him or her, repeatedly pursued unmeritorious or frivolous tactics in litigation, or who has previously been declared a vexatious litigant in a related action.” (Shalant v.

Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164 1169-1170.) “Section 391.1 provides that in any litigation pending in a California court, the defendant may move for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security on the ground the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and has no reasonable probability of prevailing against the moving defendant. The action is stayed pending determination of the motion.” (Id., p. 1170 citing Code Civ. Proc. §391.6 [emphasis added].

Discussion

In order to prevail on this motion, Defendant must demonstrate Plaintiff falls within any one of the specific definitions of a “vexatious litigant” set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b) and also that Plaintiff has no reasonable probability of prevailing against Defendant in this action. As for the present motion, Defendant relies exclusively on the definition pursuant to subdivision (b)(3) of section 391, which defines a “vexatious litigant” as a person who:

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.

“Evidence that a litigant is a frequent plaintiff or defendant alone is insufficient to support a vexatious litigant designation.” (Morton v. Wagner, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at 970.) The Court of Appeal in Morton explained as follows: “While there is no bright-line rule as to what constitutes ‘repeatedly,’ most cases affirming the vexatious litigant designation involve situations where litigants have filed dozens of motions either during the pendency of an action or relating to the same judgment. (Bravo, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 225 [litigant filed numerous motions contesting appointment of the special discovery master; six motions challenging judge or his rulings; five motions for sanctions against opponent, opponent's attorney, judge and special master; a motion for continuance; and a motion for new trial].) In Bravo the court found

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 16D

that approximately 20 motions constituted ‘repeated’ because they all arose during the same action and many of the motions were identical to motions previously brought and denied.” (Id., at 972.) Further, “[n]ot all failed motions can support a vexatious litigant designation. The repeated motions must be so devoid of merit and be so frivolous that they can be described as a ‘“flagrant abuse of the system,”’ have ‘no reasonable probability of success,’ lack ‘reasonable or probable cause or excuse’ and are clearly meant to ‘“abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants.”’ (Ibid. [citing Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 43, 55].)

Defendant contends Plaintiff should be declared a “vexatious litigant” because, among other things, Plaintiff has filed over a dozen separate lawsuits and claims. As evidence in support of this contention, Defendant presents a chart of known lawsuits prepared by Defendant’s counsel’s office staff. (Defendant Terra Nova Counseling’s Index of Exhibits in Support of Vexatious Litigant Motion and request for Security Posting, Exhibit H; Long Decl., ¶ 8.) According to Defendant’s Exhibit H, some of these actions remain pending with no disposition as of the filing of this motion, some of them have resulted in dismissal but with no indication in the chart of the grounds for dismissal, and some of them have resulted in dismissal where there appears to be an implication in the chart (e.g., “without leave to amend,” or “insufficient evidence”) that such dismissal may have been related to the merits in some way. (Defendant’s Exhibit H.)

Defendant’s counsel’s declaration appears to recount similar statuses regarding some, but not all, of the actions/claims referenced in Exhibit H. (Long Decl., ¶¶ 8-10.) Notably, there does not appear to be any attestation that the entirety of information contained in Exhibit H is true and correct.

The Court finds that at least for purposes of the current motion and the manner in which it is presented, Defendant’s evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Plaintiff is a “vexatious litigant” based upon the various actions/claims referenced in Exhibit H. As noted, Exhibit H is not accompanied by evidence establishing that all the information contained therein is true and correct. While the Long Declaration appears to address some of the actions, it does not appear to address all of them or the accuracy of Exhibit H in its entirety, including the specific characterizations regarding the outcome of cases stated therein.

As a party-prepared chart, the information contained therein would have to be both attested to and presented in an admissible fashion for the Court to rely upon such information in making a “vexatious litigant” determination. Notably, while Exhibit H is not a collection of court dockets, even if it was, “[i]t is difficult, if not impossible, to make a determination under subdivision (b)(3) simply by resort to the docket sheet of a previous case. Even when the outcome of a particular motion can be successfully divined from the docket—a task that is not always easy—it is often impossible to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 16D

discern whether the particular motion was completely meritless, or made for an improper purpose.” (Holcomb v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 129 Ca.App.4th 1494, 1506.)

Here, Defendant has not provided enough evidence or analysis for the Court to determine that each of Plaintiff’s separately filed actions and claims referenced in Exhibit H were in fact, “unmeritorious” or “frivolous” as such terms are specifically used in Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b)(3), which again, is the sole definitional section relied upon in Defendant’s motion. Rather, according to Exhibit H (even if the accuracy of such document were supported by evidence), some of the actions have not yet been determined on the merits and others have been dismissed on procedural grounds. (See, e.g., Exhibit H, Case No. 24CV015688 and 24SC001895.)

Also, where Counsel represents an action was dismissed on the merits, Defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence (such as the rulings indicating the specific grounds for dismissal) to support the finding that the action itself had no reasonable probability of success such that it was “unmeritorious” or “frivolous” under section 391(b)(3). The fact that Plaintiff may have been unsuccessful in other lawsuits is not in itself sufficient to support the finding that Plaintiff is a “vexatious litigant” without further evidence and analysis.

Importantly, while the Court finds that Defendant’s current motion as presented is insufficient to demonstrate that the series of actions/claims filed by Plaintiff and referenced in Exhibit H supports the finding that Plaintiff is a “vexatious litigant” under Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b)(3), the Court’s conclusion at this time does not preclude a potential finding in the future that Plaintiff is, in fact, a “vexatious litigant,” including based upon a potential finding that Plaintiff’s repeated lawsuits/claims and the specific nature of their dispositions contribute to a finding that Plaintiff qualifies under one of the definitions of Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b).

The Court simply does not have adequate information in this motion to find that Defendant has satisfied its burden under section 391(b)(3). Also, the Court does not address any of the other statutory definitions under section 391(b) and whether Plaintiff potentially could be subject to “vexatious litigant” designation in the future under any other definition. The Court cautions the parties that they should not erroneously conclude that this ruling somehow implicitly finds that Plaintiff’s other litigations referenced in Exhibit H are meritorious or not frivolous.

The Court makes no such finding here one way or another.

Defendant next contends Plaintiff should be declared a “vexatious litigant” under Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b) because Plaintiff has filed more than 100 documents in the present action. As support for this argument, Defendant cites the Long Declaration at ¶¶ 16-17 and the “Court’s Docket.” (MPA at 11:19.) Again, section 391(b)(3), among other things, requires “repeatedly” filed “unmeritorious motions, pleadings or other papers,” or “tactics that are

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 16D

frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b)(3).) Defendant has not satisfied its burden on this motion in such regard. As noted above, while the filing of numerous documents could in part contribute to the finding that a litigant is vexatious, the fact of such filings alone is not sufficient. Defendant has failed to show that Plaintiff has repeatedly made unmeritorious filings or is engaging in frivolous tactics for the purpose of delay. Nor does the Long Declaration include sufficient facts in such regard but rather, paragraph 17, for instance, acknowledges that Defendant’s demurrer ruled upon in December 2024 was “partially” (not entirely) sustained. (Long Decl., at ¶ 17.)

Aside from whether Defendant may be able to demonstrate the requirements under section 391(b)(3) based upon some greater showing of evidence, Defendant does not do so in this motion.

Additionally, the Court notes that Defendant also relies on arguments that Plaintiff has filed meritless actions against Counsel and judicial officers based on a misunderstanding of discovery and court procedures. While the filing of unmeritorious or frivolous actions against other parties may potentially raise their own consequences for a plaintiff, to prevail on the present motion which seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to furnish security as a condition of pursuing claims against the Defendant in this action, it is not sufficient that Plaintiff may have pursued meritless claims against other parties.

Rather, to succeed on this motion, Defendant would have to establish both that Plaintiff is a “vexatious litigant” and “that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.3(a) [emphasis added].) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are based on assertions that Defendant failed to provide contractual DUI sessions and that Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff from the DUI treatment program based on false allegations that Plaintiff failed to attend the sessions.

Aside from whether Defendant could establish such proof, at least in the present motion, Defendant fails to explain why Plaintiff has no reasonable probability of success against Defendant on these claims. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to demonstrate at this time that Plaintiff should be required to furnish security as a condition of continuing this action against Defendant.

The Court notes that Defendant has included in its motion numerous examples of emails from Plaintiff (as well as other forms of communication) that Defendant describes as inappropriate, inflammatory and/or threatening statements directed towards Defendant’s counsel and staff. (See e.g., MPA at 11:10-12:25; Long Decl., ¶ 24, Exhibits K, L.) Defendant’s counsel attests that Plaintiff’s “communications are escalating in their disrespect,” are “verbally abusive emails,” that “Plaintiff’s behavior is deteriorating rather than improving,” and that “Plaintiff has caused discomfort and fear to my office.” (Long Decl., ¶¶ 19-23.) A few examples of Plaintiff’s written statements to Defendant’s counsel include the following excerpts:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 16D

“Jeff the Sherrifs [sic] will be in your office soon again because of your lies” [Plaintiff’s November 13, 2024 email]; “This is not a threat jeff. I’m going to drag you and your firm down publicly also for the lies. The city too. Have a good day.” [Plaintiff’s December 5, 2024 email]; “if you were in Scotland you have been dealt with a long time ago. And a court would not be involved.” [Plaintiff’s December 19, 2024 email]; “Yes I don’t give a fuk about the depositions. You really want me in your office with 6 of you blatantly telling lies jeff.” [Plaintiff’ December 30, 2024 email, 9:45 a.m.]; “bo and kisha are fuking 2 animals on a power trip, and andrea is there fuking puppet. how the fuk did you fall for there fuking dumb lies then put it in demurrers and destroy my fuking well-being, I've fuking worked all my life and fuking not had a job for a year because of the fuking lot of you. . . . cant belive your fuking dumb laws and the system here. and why dirty gready fuking lawyers like yourself are allowed to just fuking change the pleadings of complaint and act like its fuking nothing, this shit has fuking ruined me mentally. u levangie and loorz have had 100s if not thousands between you in that fuking court, so i know your friends with them both, this is exactly the reason fuking kruger and keuoshi are on a federal case. i have nothing to lose now. let that fuking terranova take the hit for there fuking lies. and i will ease up on the federal case against your law firm.” [Plaintiff’s December 30, 2024 email, 9:40 a.m.]; “Bo and Kisha are disgusting humans, like your office.” [Plaintiff’s January 7, 2025 email]; “wow your office is constantly full of lies, how far really can you get away with breaking all these rules, your a piece a shit jeff.” [Plaintiff’s January 15, 2025 email]; “fuk your office, you and the judges are all friends what chance do i have.” [Plaintiff’s January 29, 2025 email]; “bo kisha and andrea are animals and your just as bad jeff, howd you even sleep at night man, I hope there a hell for people like you I really do.

This beyond my thinking and never thought I would have to go through this shite for telling the truth, fuk all your office man your driving me crazy” [Plaintiff’s January 30, 2025 email]; “a guy got shot dead for defend deny delay, this is simply the game you played with me, that’s just disgusting more when I look into this shit, and they judges sit back and let it happen. fuk you m8.” [Plaintiff’s February 9, 2025 email]; “Have a great weekend ya bunch of assholes” [Plaintiff’s April 11, 2025 email];

(Exhibits K, L [errors in original].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 16D

In his opposition to the present motion, Plaintiff does not deny making the above-referenced statements and using the language and words quoted therein. Instead, Plaintiff, in his opposition states that “[t]hroughout this case, Plaintiff has acted in good faith . . . not to harass or burden Defendants” and that Defendant’s motion is nothing more than “reframing ordinary litigation activity as ‘harassment’ and substituting rhetoric for evidence.” (Opposition at 3:10-13; 12:10- 11.) Even further, Plaintiff has filed a declaration in opposition in which he attests that “I did not ‘harass’ Defendants or their staff. Any communications I made were for the purpose of obtaining records, clarifying procedural issues, or responding to filings. I did not threaten anyone, and I did not engage in any conduct intended to cause fear or discomfort.” (Declaration of James Sanford at ¶ 13.)

While the present motion shall be denied, the Court is compelled to comment here that to the extent that Plaintiff believes that his words and statements, samples of which are quoted above, are expressions of “good faith” or could have no tendency “to harass or burden Defendants” or are nothing more than “ordinary litigation activity,” Plaintiff is gravely mistaken. There is nothing about Plaintiff’s chosen words and statements that on their face appear to communicate “good faith” or an appropriately measured and tempered engagement of “ordinary litigation activity.” Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff believes that his statements to Defendant’s counsel are proper because all of them were “for the purposes of obtaining records, clarifying procedural issues, or responding to filings,” the Court finds such statements entirely inappropriate for achieving any such purposes as they include inflammatory and ad hominem attacks that are both inexcusable and counterproductive to any possible legitimate motive that might have concurrently existed.

Likewise, to the extent Plaintiff believes that his statements above, “did not threaten anyone” and he “did not engage in any conduct intended to cause fear or discomfort,” the Court advises Plaintiff to consider how any recipient of his statements may perceive Plaintiff’s intent based upon his own words. To be clear, Plaintiff is not required under law to agree with the merits of Defendant’s various positions taken in this action, nor is Plaintiff required under law to simply accept the accuracy of every statement made by Defendant or its personnel.

However, Plaintiff’s words and statements go far beyond taking issue with the merits of Defendant’s positions or statements and instead constitute inappropriate, inflammatory, and ad hominem attacks on Defendant’s counsel and its staff. Simply put, Plaintiff’s chosen words and statements are unacceptable in any litigation. Further, the fact that Plaintiff is not trained in the law and is self-represented constitutes no excuse for the words and manner of his communications. Self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment. (Nelson v.

Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638-639.) A party representing himself or herself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 16D

United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210). Plaintiff, just the same as any attorney or self-represented party in any other case, must communicate with civility and professionalism. Indeed, 'zealous advocacy does not equate with 'attack dog' or 'scorched earth’ nor does it mean lack of civility.” (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1537.) The Court expects that Plaintiff will not engage in such inappropriate communications in the future.

Finally, the Court notes for the record, that Defendant’s counsel’s recitation of the recusal history pertaining to Plaintiff’s cases is not entirely accurate. That is, it is not accurate that “Plaintiff amended the original Complaint to include Judge Sueyoshi as well, who then recused himself from all cases pending with Plaintiff.” (Long Decl., ¶ 15.) The present case (as well as Case No. 24CV016172) remains assigned to this Court.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, Defendant’s motion is DENIED in its entirety. However, the Court’s denial of Defendant’s motion, does not prevent Defendants from making a renewed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b) if sufficient legal grounds are established for renewal under such section.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)