Reiner v. Cox Communications Cal., LLC CA4/3

Filed 1/28/21 Reiner v. Cox Communications Cal., LLC CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

WAYNE R. REINER,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058487

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01063705)

COX COMMUNICATIONS OPINION CALIFORNIA, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Layne H. Melzer, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to Augment. Granted. Request for Judicial Notice. Denied. Wayne R. Reiner, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass, Richard P. Patch and Philip D.W. Miller for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Wayne R. Reiner appeals from the prefiling order issued against him after the trial court found him to be a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1). (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Reiner contends he did not meet section 391, subdivision (b)(1)’s vexatious litigant definition because he had not commenced, prosecuted, or maintained, in propria persona, at least five “litigations” that were determined adversely to him. We affirm. Substantial evidence shows Reiner commenced at least 10 actions that qualify as litigations under section 391, subdivision (b)(1); the court did not err by finding Reiner a vexatious litigant and issuing the prefiling order accordingly.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant Cox Communications California, LLC (Cox) filed a motion in the trial court seeking an order declaring Reiner a vexatious litigant, a vexatious litigant prefiling order, and an order requiring Reiner to post a bond in the lawsuit Reiner filed against it. Cox filed a request for judicial notice identifying 16 litigations filed by Reiner 1 that it contended had been adversely decided against him. Reiner opposed the motion.