Elias v. Jensen CA4/3

Filed 10/10/24 Elias v. Jensen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DAVID ELIAS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063012

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00980796)

SUZANNE JENSEN, et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Catherine Evans, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. David Elias, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant David Elias appeals from an order declaring him a vexatious litigant and prohibiting him from filing any new state court litigation in propria persona without first obtaining leave to do so. Because appellant fails to demonstrate any prejudicial error, we affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 The underpinning of this case is a probate matter. At some point during the trial court proceedings, respondents filed a motion to have appellant declared a vexatious litigant. The court denied the motion but noted that appellant’s “‘conduct certainly [gave] the court pause and concern, suggesting a pattern of conduct that . . . if continued would rise to the level of being “vexatious.’”” It further “‘strongly cautioned’” appellant that “‘his conduct in [the] proceeding may be cited in any future motion to declare him [a] vexatious [litigant].’” Following numerous additional filings, a trial on certain matters, and multiple appeals by appellant, respondents once again filed a motion requesting that appellant be declared a vexatious litigant. Appellant opposed the motion arguing, inter alia, respondents were using it as a diversionary tactic to avoid certain alleged trust obligations. The trial court held an initial hearing and thereafter allowed the parties to submit supplemental briefing concerning whether certain identified filings by appellant qualified as “‘“unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, . . . [or] other tactics that are frivolous or solely