Merritt v. Gandhi CA6

Filed 5/21/15 Merritt v. Gandhi CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DAVID MERRITT et al., H039291 (Santa Clara County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. 1-11-CV195455)

v.

CHETAK GANDHI et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appellants Salma Merritt and David Merritt appeal an order of the superior court declaring them vexatious litigants. On appeal, they assert the court erred in making his designation. The underlying litigation in this case involves appellants’ attempt to secure exclusive use of a public parking space adjacent to their home. Appellants, acting in pro per, sued the homeowners’ association, as well as the individual board members of the association in an effort to secure the parking space. Judgment ultimately was awarded in favor of respondents, following their successful motion for summary judgment. On February 6, 2013, after judgment was entered in favor of respondents, the trial court declared appellants to be vexations litigants.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants own a home in the Classics at Fair Oaks community in Sunnyvale. Respondents are the Classics at Fair Oaks Homeowners’ Association (Association), as well as Chetak Gandhi, Wayne Brown and Ying-Chi “Sherry” Lee, who are individual board members of the Association. In 2011, appellants, acting in pro per, filed a complaint against respondents in an effort to secure exclusive use of a public parking space adjacent to their home. The complaint alleged conspiracy, invasion of privacy, and discrimination based on disability. Over the two-year period of the underlying litigation, appellants filed numerous unmeritorious motions, pleadings and notices in the trial court. On May 11, 2011, appellants filed an unmeritorious, motion for sanctions On August 17, 2011, appellants filed a “Notice of Unavailability” stating that they were departing the United States on August 31, 2011 for several months and that David Merritt would not return until September 15, 2011 and then would be departing again on October 30, 2011. Salma Merritt would be out of the country until November 15, 2011. On October 5, 2011, appellants filed another “Notice of Unavailability” stating that Salma Merritt would not be available until November 22, 2011 and that David Merritt would be leaving the county on November 4, 2011 and would be unavailable until November 21, 2011. On January 30, 2012, respondents filed a motion to compel initial responses to written discovery and request for sanctions. In opposition to this motion, appellants moved for a protective order. On March 12, 2012, the court granted respondents’ motion, sanctioned appellants $1,170, and denied appellants’ motion for a protective order. On or about March 20, 2012, appellants filed an unmeritorious motion to reconsider the March 12, 2012 order. The court denied this motion on the merits because appellants did not present any new facts or law to support reconsideration. In addition,