Mora v. Fu CA1/1

Filed 3/28/23 Mora v. Fu CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publi- cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or- dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

WILLIAM MORA, A165682 Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Francisco City v. & County TONY FU, Super. Ct. No. CGC- 21-594417) Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

Plaintiff William Mora appeals from a dismissal following an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391 et seq. declaring him a vexatious litigant, ordering that he provide security and, if not posted, automatic dismissal, and barring him from any further filings in propria persona in California without approval of the presiding judge. “[Code of Civil Procedure] [s]ection 391—the vexatious litigant statute—‘ “was enacted ‘ “to curb misuse of the court system” ’ by ‘ “persistent and obsessive” litigants.’ ” ’ [Citation.] As relevant here, a vexatious litigant is one who, while self-represented, ‘ “repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate” matters already finally determined against them or “repeatedly

This appeal is appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion in 1

accordance with California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” ’ ” (In re Marriage of Deal (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 71, 77.) The vexatious litigant statutes “provide two distinct and cumulative remedies against vexatious litigants , both of which were invoked here. [Ci- tation.] The first of these remedies is an order to furnish security , as de- scribed in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 391.3. A defendant obtains this remedy, as was done here, by bringing a motion under [Code of Civil Proce- dure] section 391.1, which requires determinations that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reason able probability that he or she will prevail on the merits in the action. If the court issues an order to furnish security , the action is automatically stayed from the time the motion was filed until 10 days after plaintiff posts the required security . ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.6.) If the plaintiff fails to post the security , the action ‘shall be dismissed as to the defendant for whose benefit it was ordered furnished.’ ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.4.)” ( Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 633–634 ( Golin ), fns. omitted.) “[Code of Civil Procedure] [s]ection 391.7 provides the second and addi- tional remedy. It authorizes the court to ‘enter a prefiling order which pro- hibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the cour ts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.’ ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.7, subd. (a).) The presiding judge may allow the filing of the new action ‘only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. The presiding judge may condition the fil ing of the litigation upon the furnishing of security for the benefit of