Nesbit v. Green Hills Subway CA2/1

Filed 6/27/25 Nesbit v. Green Hills Subway CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

ANDRE NESBIT, B337980

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STCV11197) v.

GREEN HILLS SUBWAY, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order and a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Bowick, Judge. Affirmed. Andre Nesbit, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Diana M. Estrada and Brandon C. White for Defendant and Respondent. _____________________

Plaintiff and appellant Andre Nesbit challenges the trial court’s order declaring him a vexatious litigant (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)),1 requiring him to post a monetary bond in order to avoid dismissal of his suit (§ 391.3), and prohibiting him from filing new litigation in propria persona without first obtaining leave of court (§ 391.7). The court found that, within the preceding seven years, Nesbit had unsuccessfully prosecuted six previous actions in propria persona, and that there was no reasonable probability that he would succeed in the instant case against defendant and respondent Green Hills Subway, Inc. (Subway). Nesbit contends this was error, arguing that he has a reasonable probability of prevailing in his case against Subway, that Subway failed to show the prior cases were decided against him, and that the trial court applied the wrong standard in determining he was a vexatious litigant. We find no merit in Nesbit’s claims, and we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW On May 18, 2023, Nesbit filed a complaint against Subway alleging negligence per se based on the violation of Civil Code section 51, subdivision (b), and Los Angeles Municipal Code section 51.03, laws that bar discrimination in commerce on the basis of race and other protected categories. Nesbit claimed that “[o]n [May 7, 2023] at 11:00 a.m. at Subway #47845-0, two female employees, one with black hair, one with red hair refused to serve [him]. They looked at [him], did not speak and walked off the