Peterson v. Sartory CA2/1

Filed 4/1/21 Peterson v. Sartory CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JILLIAN PETERSON, B298583

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 18VECV00232)

JENNIFER SARTORY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Huey P. Cotton, Judge. Affirmed. Jillian Peterson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Raines Feldman, John S. Cha, Nathan M. Carle, and Lawrence J.H. Liu for Defendant and Respondent. ____________________________

Jillian Peterson appeals from an order granting Jennifer Sartory’s motion that Peterson be declared a vexatious litigant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subds. (b)(1)-(3).)1 We will affirm the trial court’s order.

BACKGROUND Peterson filed a complaint against Sartory on November 29, 2018 alleging, among many other things, that Sartory’s dog had bitten Peterson; that Sartory had bribed a public official; that Sartory suffers from mental illness; that Sartory had been spying on, stalking, and bullying Peterson since 2016; and that Sartory “illegally obtained [Peterson’s] email addresses.” Sartory moved the court for an order striking the complaint and separately for an order declaring Peterson to be a vexatious litigant.2 The trial court heard both motions on February 25, 2019. At the hearing, the trial court struck the complaint. The trial court continued the hearing on the vexatious litigant motion to allow the parties to submit additional declarations and exhibits regarding whether Peterson had “exhausted her right of appeal or are any such appeal rights time barred in each of the predicate cases” the trial court had listed as the basis of its tentative ruling on the vexatious litigant motion. The trial court called the matter for hearing again on April 23, 2019. In its minute order granting Sartory’s motion, the trial court noted that Peterson’s supplemental opposition did not address the question presented regarding finality of the predicate