Humphrey v. Gingerbread Court CA2/5

Filed 8/9/13 Humphrey v. Gingerbread Court CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

BARBARA HUMPHREY, B238300 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff, Super. Ct. No. SC101482)

v.

GINGERBREAD COURT, L.P.,

Defendant and Respondent;

THEODORE A. PINNOCK,

Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cesar C. Sarmiento, Judge. Affirmed. David C. Wakefield for Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Westlake Law Group and David Blake Chatfield for Defendant and Respondent. No appearance for Plaintiff.

Theodore A. Pinnock appeals the trial court‟s orders for security and a prefiling order under the vexatious litigant statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 391 et seq. Finding no error, we affirm.1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Pinnock represented Barbara Humphrey (Humphrey) in a lawsuit against defendant Gingerbread Court L.P. (defendant), alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a) et seq.), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, §§ 51 and 52), and the Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, §§ 54, 54.1 and 54.3). Defendant alleged Humphrey and her counsel, appellant Pinnock, were vexatious litigants, and filed a motion for a security and prefiling order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure2 sections 391.1 and 391.7, subdivision (a). The basis for the motion was not that Humphrey had filed multiple, unsuccessful lawsuits in propria persona (she had not), but that her counsel, Pinnock, was using her as a “straw plaintiff” in order to skirt the vexatious litigant statute. Defendant submitted evidence Pinnock had filed over 2,000 lawsuits against nearly 10,000 small businesses, either in his name, in the name of an association formed by him, or in the name of indigent individuals who acted as plaintiffs in name only, including more than 50 lawsuits filed in Humphrey‟s name during 2009, none of which resulted in a judgment for Humphrey. Defendant also submitted evidence going to the merits of the lawsuit, including photographs of signage directing the physically disabled to alternative access points and thus refuting the allegation that the defendant‟s property had no such signage, and the sworn statement of counsel that he had personally inspected the premises and found none of the alleged violations. Notably, Pinnock did not submit a declaration of plaintiff Humphrey that Pinnock was prosecuting this case on her behalf.