Carl L. Miller vs. Axon Enterprises, Inc.

On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request for rehearing with the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, which was rejected. (Id., Ex. 4, 5.) On December 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of California rejected Appellant’s Petition for Review. (Id., Ex.

34-2020-00285421-CU-PL-GDS: Carl L. Miller vs. Axon Enterprises, Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice in Department 16C

6.) On December 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “motion for judicial notice in re: motion to set aside/vacate per CCP 1005(a)(1)-(13),” which seeks review of the Court’s 2021 decision sustaining the demurrer.

Motion to Strike

Defendant filed the instant motion to strike, which was advanced to today’s hearing date via ex parte application. Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to modify the Judgment, which was entered nearly five years ago.

Once the remittitur is issued, the appeal is final. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Wilshire Center Marketplace (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1424.) “A general or unqualified affirmance ordinarily sustains the judgment and ends the litigation. The respondent can enforce the judgment, the trial court cannot modify it, and further proceedings are improper.” (Ibid.)

Because final judgment has been entered in this matter and the Court is without power to modify the judgment, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion, which is set for hearing on June 23, 2026. The June 23, 2026 hearing is hereby VACATED.

Vexatious Litigant

Defendant also requests a pre-filing order precluding Plaintiff from making any further filings related to the final judgment in this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. Section 391.7 states:

In addition to any other relief provided in this title, the court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.

A vexatious litigant means a person who:

After a 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285421-CU-PL-GDS: Carl L. Miller vs. Axon Enterprises, Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice in Department 16C

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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(2).) However, this request is premature, as the Court has not yet found that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. The requested prefiling order cannot be issued without a hearing on a noticed motion pursuant to section 391.7. (Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 225 [“if declaring a litigant vexatious under section 391.1 statutorily requires an oral hearing, so must a declaration of the same under section 391.7 for a prefiling order”].)

Therefore, Defendant’s request for a prefiling order is denied.

Disposition

Defendant’s motion to strike December 30, 2025 filing is GRANTED. The June 23, 2026 hearing is hereby VACATED.

Defendant’s request for a prefiling order is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

Moving party’s notice of motion does not provide full notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving party is directed to contact Plaintiff and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving party is unable to contact Plaintiff counsel prior to hearing, moving party is ordered to appear at the hearing.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285421-CU-PL-GDS: Carl L. Miller vs. Axon Enterprises, Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice in Department 16C

party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

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