Tevis v. Satin CA3

Filed 11/22/22 Tevis v. Satin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

NANCY TEVIS et al., C093838

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. PC20200273)

v.

HEATHER SATIN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Larry Tevis and Nancy Tevis appeal the trial court’s order declaring them vexatious litigants. They argue the trial court’s designation was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. BACKGROUND We derive the facts and procedural history, as best as we are able, from the limited record provided on appeal. Plaintiffs filed the underlying action against the defendants, which according to plaintiffs’ opening brief, appears to involve claims relating to negligence, elder abuse,

1

and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved the trial court for an order declaring plaintiffs to be vexatious litigants and to dismiss the case due to plaintiffs’ failure to pay court fees. The trial court granted the motion, declaring plaintiffs vexatious litigants on the ground that “the claims made in the instant action were or could have been litigated in the earlier case of Tevis, et al. v. Mittelstadt, et al., El Dorado County Superior Court Case No. SC20180043,” which plaintiffs “voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.” The court dismissed the current action. Plaintiffs timely appealed. We denied plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal the order dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with the appeal solely on the issue of whether the trial court erred in declaring them vexatious litigants and in entering a prefiling order. We received no briefing from defendants. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion in designating them as vexatious litigants, claiming the court’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence.1 We disagree. A vexatious litigant is a person who, “[a]fter a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b)(2).) A litigation is determined adversely to a plaintiff for purposes of the vexatious litigant statute if the