DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA

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

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 12/03/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 25

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Volunteers of America Northern California & Northern Nevada’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Enter a Prefiling Order Against Plaintiff Raymond Douglas (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff commenced the present action against Defendant. He alleges that in 2015 and 2016 he experienced various forms of battery, theft, harassment by Defendant’s staff and other shelter residents, and other interference with his rights, including restricting his movement around Defendant’s shelter where he resided; Defendant alleges that he was improperly evicted.

On April 8, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default which had been entered and for leave to file a demurrer to the complaint. Defendant’s motion to set aside the default was granted on August 1, 2024, and, pursuant to the Court’s order, Defendant filed its demurrer to the complaint on August 7, 2024. In response, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 27, 2024.

On September 10, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, which this Court sustained with leave to amend on March 5, 2025, finding that Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations and that the doctrines of delayed discovery and equitable tolling were inapplicable.

On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the August 1, 2024, Order that granted relief from entry of default and permitted Defendant to file the demurrer to the original complaint. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate on June 26, 2025, took the matter under submission following oral argument, and affirmed its decision on June 27, 2025.

In the interim, Plaintiff filed the SAC on March 19, 2025. On March 24, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Enter a Prefiling Order Against Plaintiff on the Grounds he is a Vexatious Litigant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 12/03/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 25

On July 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal pertaining to the June 27, 2024 order that denied Plaintiff’s request to vacate the August 1, 2024 order that granted Defendant relief from entry of default and permitted Defendant to file the demurrer to the original Complaint.

This matter was previously continued to permit the parties to file supplemental briefing regarding whether the instant motion is “embraced in or affected by the appeal” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 916, and thus should be stayed pending appeal.

In its supplemental briefing, Defendant argues that the instant motion is merely a “collateral matter that has no bearing on the effectiveness of Plaintiff’s appeal,” and thus should not be stayed pending appeal. Defendant argues that regardless of whether the appeal succeeds, Plaintiff may still properly be labeled a vexatious litigant and be subject to a prefiling order.

Plaintiff argues in his supplemental briefing that should he prevail on appeal, default will be entered against Defendant, and thus Defendant would have been unable to bring the instant motion. Plaintiff argues that the Court is without jurisdiction to rule on the instant motion, given that any motion brought by Defendant is embraced by the appeal.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a) stays all further trial court proceedings “upon the matters embraced” in or “affected” by the appeal. The purpose of the automatic stay provision is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction by preserving “the rights of the parties in the same condition they were before the order was made.” (Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 41.)

In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the appeal, the Court must consider the appeal and its possible outcomes in relation to the proceeding and its possible results. The court in Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189 explained that “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (Emphasis added.)

While the specific subject of the instant motion is not the same as is at issue in the appeal, the results of the appeal will certainly affect whether Defendant is able to bring any motion. As argued by Plaintiff, the instant motion “is embraced in the trial court but

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 12/03/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Declare Vexatious Litigant in Department 25

is affected by the order appealed from, “and ‘inarguably affects the entire case.’” (Pltf. Supp. Brief, p. 2:23-24.) Should Plaintiff’s appeal succeed, Defendant will be in default, and thus unable to bring any motions, including to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Therefore, any motion brought by Defendant will be affected by the appeal and is stayed pending the result of the appeal. (See e.g. Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1300, 1314.)

Accordingly, the instant motion is dropped pending results of Plaintiff’s appeal. This is without prejudice to Defendant bringing a similar motion should Plaintiff’s appeal be denied.