BOE vs DEACON CORP.

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant & to Furnish an Undertaking in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting 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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant & to Furnish an Undertaking in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Deacon Builders, LLC’s (“Defendant”) unopposed Motion for Order to Deem Plaintiff Jon Boe (“Plaintiff”) a Vexatious Litigant and to Furnish an Undertaking Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 391 is ruled upon as follows.

This action was commenced in 2024 and appears to arise from allegations that the defendant, a construction company, performed construction work on property adjacent to plaintiff’s and caused unspecified harm, or the possibility of harm, to plaintiff’s person and/or property.

Defendant now seeks an order declaring Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 391(b)(3) and also seeks to require Plaintiff to furnish an undertaking pursuant to Section 391.1.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. However, Plaintiff did file an unauthorized “Non-Argumentative Comprehensive REJECTION” to the Notice of Non-Opposition. Plaintiff asserts that he is complying with an August 12, 2025 Minute Order relating to a pending Motion for Reconsideration that continued the hearing date and provided that “No further filings on this matter will be permitted or considered.” The Court notes that the filing does not seek to oppose the pending motion and thus is not considered to be an untimely opposition.

Finding of Vexatious Litigant

The purpose of the vexatious litigant statute is to address the problems created by the “persistent and obsessive litigant” who cause “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 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.

Section 391(b)(3) provides that a vexatious litigant includes anyone 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b)(3).) Unlike other provisions of the statute, subdivision (b)(3) “does not specify either a time frame or quantity of actions necessary to support a vexatious litigant finding under that section.” (Morton, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant & to Furnish an Undertaking in Department 53

971.)

“What constitutes ‘repeatedly’ and ‘unmeritorious’ under subdivision (b)(3)” is within the “sound discretion” of the trial court.” (Id.) Nevertheless, discretion, though broad, is not unfettered, and the Morton Court acknowledged:

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, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 879 [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 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 [emphasis added].)

Defendant cites to numerous filings by Plaintiff, which Defendant contends are frivolous and unnecessary, including, inter alia:

1. Request for Adjudication in Chamber Business filed on 8/16/2024, for which the Court issued a Minute Order on 9/15/24 indicating that it “takes no action regarding this document, which has not been filed”; 2. Ex Parte Application for Immediate Court Intervention filed on 10/11/2024, which the court denied on 10/15/24 for “both procedural and substantive deficiencies” and “without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking relief that is available through a noticed motion if any is available given the procedural status of this case”; 3.

Ex Parte Application for Emergency Order for Immediate Repair and Damages filed on 10/21/2024, which the court denied on 10/25/24 for “both procedural and substantive deficiencies,” referencing the denial of ex parte relief on 10/15/24; 4. Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause Regarding a Mandatory Injunction filed on 10/25/2024, which the court denied on 11/1/24 for “both procedural and substantive deficiencies” and “without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking relief, if any is available, through a noticed motion and not through repeated and duplicative ex parte applications such as this one” (emphasis in original); 5.

Omnibus Motion for Order to Proceed filed on 12/19/2024, which was denied on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant & to Furnish an Undertaking in Department 53

April 29, 2025; 6. Request for Entry of Default / Judgment filed on 4/2/2025, which was rejected because Defendant had answered; 7. Amended Request for Entry of Default / Judgment filed on 4/4/2025, which was rejected because Defendant had answered; 8. Demand to Ignore and/or Strike Opposition Reply filed on 4/4/2025; 9. Holy Letter of Repentance filed on 5/1/2025; 10. Motion for Reconsideration filed on 5/1/2025, which was denied on August 29, 2025; 11. Notice of Stay Pending Reconsideration (In-equity) filed on 5/5/2025; 12. Request for Entry of Default / Judgment filed on 7/24/2025; and 13. Request for Entry of Default / Judgment filed on 7/28/2025.

In this case, the Court has reviewed the submissions of the Plaintiff referenced by the Defendant and takes Judicial Notice of its own docket. The Court notes the Plaintiff has filed multiple documents in this case, a number of which appear to be duplicative of previously filed motions or requests, which were denied or rejected. For example, after Plaintiff’s initial ex parte application was denied, Plaintiff followed up with two additional applications that suffered from many of the same defects, despite the Court’s reasoning provided in the denials. Likewise, despite the initial request for entry of default being rejected for the filing of the Answer by Defendant (which it appears was filed only shortly before the request for default), Plaintiff has subsequently filed three additional requests. These filings are concerning.

However, based on the record before it and in its discretion, the Court does not find that Plaintiff currently meets the definition of a vexatious litigant under subdivision (b)(3). The Court admonishes Plaintiff, though, that continued filings that the Court deems to be duplicative and unmeritorious may ultimately result in the Court reaching a different conclusion.

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion.[1]

Disposition

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Further, the Court notes that the August 12, 2025 Minute Order directed that no further filings would be permitted or considered with respect to the then-pending Motion for Reconsideration. It was not applicable to the filing of an opposition with respect to this pending motion.

Defendant shall prepare a formal order consistent with the above for the Court's signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant & to Furnish an Undertaking in Department 53

[1] The Court notes that based on this finding, the Court need not find whether a showing has

been made that there is not a reasonable probability that plaintiff will prevail in the litigation in order to require a security. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.1(a).) The Court notes, however, that conclusory assertions of ultimate facts are insufficient to meet this burden. (See Muller v. Tanner (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 445, 464.) The Court further notes that mere facts that Plaintiff refuses to prosecute the instant action using his legal name and that he has failed to respond to discovery are not sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff cannot prevail in his action at this time and under the current procedural posture.

Defendant has not filed any motions to compel responses to discovery or for sanctions as a result of the asserted failure to comply, nor has Defendant filed any motion seeking dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has declined to utilize his legal name. Nor does the Court weigh in on the merits or possibility of success on any such motion at this time.