Banks v. State of California

California Court of Appeal Apr 5, 1993 No. D014995Published

Before: Wiener

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the classification of the appellant as a vexatious litigant but modified the prefiling order to explicitly exclude small claims court actions, as small claims courts are not courts of record.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly classified the appellant as a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.
Whether a prefiling order under section 391.7 requiring court approval for new litigation applies to actions filed in small claims court.

Disposition. Modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“While we reject his claim that he was improperly classed a vexatious litigant under the statutory standard, we conclude there is merit to his argument that the court’s “prior approval” order should have excluded small claims actions”

“An order entered pursuant to section 391.7, however, does not apply to actions filed in small claims court because small claims court is not a “court of record.””

Opinion

WIENER, Acting P. J.

The development of the common law is often thought to be the province of creative lawyers. There are times, however, when persons without formal legal training play a significant role in bringing issues to the attention of the courts. In this case Alfred Banks, appearing in propria persona, was declared a vexatious litigant under the standards set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b), precluding him from filing new litigation in state court without prior approval of the presiding judge of the court in which the action was to be filed. While we reject his claim that he was improperly classed a vexatious litigant under the statutory standard, we conclude there is merit to his argument that the court’s “prior approval” order should have excluded small claims actions from its terms. Accordingly, we modify the order and affirm.

In April 1991 the superior court issued an order to show cause why Alfred Banks should not be declared a vexatious litigant. Following a hearing in May 1991, the court found Banks a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil

[1149]

Procedure section 391

and issued an order pursuant to section 391.7 as follows: “[N]o new litigation may be brought by Mr. Banks in propria persona without first obtaining leave of Court from the Presiding Judge of the Court where the pending litigation is going to be filed. Mr. Banks must show that the litigation in question has merit. The Court does not order security to be posted, but issues said order [without] prejudice to any party in any action pending in the courts of the State of California . . . .”

Banks appeals this order contending that the court issuing the order lacked the jurisdiction to do so, the court failed to comply with the requisite statutory provisions and there is insufficient evidence to support it.

Discussion

Banks was properly determined to be a vexatious litigant

2. The order requiring prefiling court approval should be modified to exclude actions in small claims court.

Banks v. State of California

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief