Malikyar v. Jacobsen CA1/2

Filed 1/28/25 Malikyar v. Jacobsen CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ALISE MALIKYAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170607 v. ROBERT JACOBSEN, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSD20-03656) Defendant and Appellant.

Robert Jacobsen appeals from a trial court order declaring him to be a vexatious litigant and entering a prefiling order. He argues he does not meet the definition of a “vexatious litigant” under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 391, subdivision (b) (section 391(b)), because he has not maintained “at least five litigations” as required under paragraph (1) of section 391(b). The trial court, however, did not rely on paragraph (1); it found Jacobsen met the definition of a vexatious litigant under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 391(b). Because Jacobsen does not challenge the actual bases of the trial court’s order, we affirm.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure.

1

BACKGROUND The underlying matter is a family law action that Alise Malikyar initiated in October 2020 by filing a petition for dissolution of marriage. On March 26, 2024, Malikyar filed a “Motion to Dismiss Civil Case; Motion to have Respondent Declared as a Vexatious Litigant.” She alleged that Jacobsen “has used the judicial system to harass [her] with multiple attempts to claim an interest in” certain real property in Walnut Creek (Subject Property). On April 29, 2024, Jacobsen filed a response and objection to the motion. On April 30, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. On May 1, 2024, the trial court issued a written “order after hearing finding [Jacobsen] to be a vexatious litigant and prefiling order.” (Capitalization omitted.) In its written order, the court made the following factual findings. In June and July 2022, the court held an “evidentiary long cause” trial pertaining to all issues involving the Subject Property. In November 2022, it issued a statement of decision adjudicating “all interests” in the Subject Property and finding Malikyar the sole owner of the Subject Property. A judgment was entered on December 16, 2022. In the 2022 trial, the court found Jacobsen “had attempted to reconvey [Malikyar]’s Subject Property at various times to different trusts, corporation, limited liability companies and foreign business entities in a ‘shell game’ scheme to defeat her interest in the property.” The court found Jacobsen was “a convicted felon who perpetrated real estate fraud and money laundering,” and he was “not credible and has made material misrepresentations to the Court and continued to engage in a post-ruling litigation to deprive [Malikyar] of her interest in the Subject Property.”