DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Prefiling Order Against Plaintiff on the Grounds He's a Vexatious Litigant in Department 8D

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 be 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 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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****

TENTATIVE RULING

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

Factual Background

In July 2016, plaintiff Raymond Douglas (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil action against Defendant VOA. (SAC ¶ 13.) In April 2022, this action was dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to bring the matter to trial within five years; a judgment of dismissal was entered on April 7, 2022. (See 3/5/25 Order.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Prefiling Order Against Plaintiff on the Grounds He's a Vexatious Litigant in Department 8D

On March 5, 2026, Defendant filed a demurred to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which was sustained without leave to amend on May 13, 2026. The Court notes that a motion to enter a prefiling order pursuant to section 391.1 is not deemed moot by the Court’s May 13, 2026 minute order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint without leave to amend. The Court retains jurisdiction to rule on a motion for a prefiling order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1 following even dismissal. (See Pittman v. Beck Park Apartments Ltd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1023.).

Defendant’s motion, filed on March 5, 2026, seeks an order issuing a prefiling order against Plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1 on the grounds that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff opposes, arguing predominantly that the motion should be denied because a prior order deeming him a vexatious litigant had not been entered, and thus the Court cannot consider a motion to enter a prefiling order.

Discussion

Defendant seeks a prefiling order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing new litigation without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Judge of this Court. Defendant has presented evidence that Plaintiff has filed over five cases within a seven-year period that have finally been determined adversely to him.

A “vexatious litigant” is a person who “in the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391(b)(1).) “Litigation” “means any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained or pending in any state or federal court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391(a).) “‘Any civil action or proceeding' includes any appeal or writ proceeding.” (McColm v. Westwood Park Ass'n (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1216 [disapproved on other grounds in John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 99, fn.2].)

In opposition, Plaintiff cites to Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164 in support of his argument that it is necessary to obtain an order deeming a party a vexatious litigation prior to seeking a prefiling order. (See id., at p. 1170.) As further explained in People v. Harrison (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 780, 787:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enter Prefiling Order Against Plaintiff on the Grounds He's a Vexatious Litigant in Department 8D

Before there can be a prefiling order, however, there must be a “vexatious litigant” within the contemplation of the code. While a court may enter a prefiling order on its own motion, the statutes do not appear to envision that a court may, on its own motion, find a plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant in the first instance. Insofar as the record shows, and assuming Harrison could qualify as a “plaintiff” within the meaning of the statutes, no “defendant” made an appropriate motion, and no hearing was held. Accordingly, the order was procedurally defective.

Defendant’s notice of motion states that Defendant brings “a Motion to Enter a Prefiling Order Against Plaintiff on the Grounds he is a Vexatious Litigant.” Nowhere in the notice of motion does Defendant state that they are seeking to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, nor is such a request found in any of Defendant’s moving papers. Therefore, the issue of determining whether Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant is not properly before the Court.

As Plaintiff has not previously been found to be a vexatious litigant, and because Defendant has not properly noticed such a request with respect to the instant motion, Defendant’s motion for the entry of a prefiling order must be DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.