Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court
Citation | 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 42,12 Cal.App.4th 838 |
Decision Date | 25 January 1993 |
Docket Number | No. C014311,C014311 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | CAMERADO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of Sacramento County, Respondent. Edward R. STOLZ II, Real Party in Interest. |
Mark S. Tratten, Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Brown, Kilduff & Day, Inc., Sacramento, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
John A. Bodney, Sacramento, for real party in interest.
Petitioner (defendant) seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to set aside its order denying defendant's motion for security, brought pursuant to the vexatious litigant statute. (Code Civ.Proc., § 391, et seq.; further statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Code of Civil Procedure.)
While represented by counsel, real party in interest, individually and doing business as two unincorporated sole proprietorships, (hereafter plaintiff) sued defendant and several others who are not party to this original proceeding, alleging causes of action sounding in contract and tort. The facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint are not relevant to this proceeding.
Defendant moved for an order requiring plaintiff to furnish security in the amount of $62,000. Defendant asserted plaintiff is a vexatious litigant because plaintiff has, inter alia, commenced at least five litigations in propria persona during the past seven years which have been finally determined adversely to him or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing. (See § 391, subd. (b)(1).)
At hearing on the motion, the parties and respondent court focused on whether the vexatious litigant statute applies to a litigant who is presently represented by counsel, despite having commenced five litigations in propria persona in the previous seven years. Respondent court concluded that, when read as a whole, the statute implicitly applies only to litigants acting in propria persona in the civil action in which the vexatious litigant motion is brought. Accordingly, because plaintiff had at all times been represented by counsel in the underlying litigation, the court denied defendant's motion for security without considering evidence on the question whether plaintiff meets the other statutory criteria of a vexatious litigant.
Defendant filed this petition for writ of mandate on September 22, 1992. On October 8, 1992, we notified the parties we were considering issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance and that any further opposition to the petition was to be filed by October 23, 1992. We also stayed further proceedings in the respondent court pending receipt of opposition and further order of this court. Having considered plaintiff's opposition, we shall order a writ of mandate to issue.
Defendant contends respondent court's construction of the vexatious litigant statute, as applying only to litigants acting in propria persona in the litigation in which the motion is brought, is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute, its legislative history, policy, case law and commentary. We agree.
(California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 698.)
The vexatious litigant statute (§ 391, et seq.) was first adopted by the Legislature in 1963. (Stats.1963, ch. 1471, § 1, p. 3038.) In its present form, the statute permits a defendant in a civil action or proceeding to move for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security. (§§ 391, subds. (a), (d), 391.1.) "The motion must be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that he will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant." (§ 391.1.)
" 'Plaintiff' means the person who commences, institutes or maintains a litigation or causes it to be commenced, instituted or maintained, including an attorney at law acting in propria persona." (§ 391, subd. (d).)
(§ 391, subd. (b).)
The language of this statute leaves little room for interpretation. The defendant who moves for security must prove the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. A plaintiff is a person who commences, institutes or maintains a litigation. The Legislature defined a plaintiff as a person, not as a person acting in propria persona. 1 A vexatious litigant is a person who engages in, or has engaged in, any of the four types of conduct specified in section 391, subdivision (b). Of the four defining acts that transform a plaintiff into a vexatious litigant, each refers to acts committed while the person was in propria persona. Although the second and third acts described in the statute refer to a person acting in propria persona in the very proceeding in which a defendant attempts to obtain an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security, the first and fourth do not. A plain reading of the statute indicates the Legislature intended it to apply, at least as to the first and fourth described acts (§ 391, subds. (b)(1) and (b)(4)), to persons currently represented by counsel whose conduct was vexatious when they represented themselves in the past.
Our reading of the statute is consistent with its legislative purpose. "The vexatious litigant statutes were enacted to require a person found a vexatious litigant to put up security for the reasonable expenses of a defendant who becomes the target of one of these obsessive and persistent litigants whose conduct can cause serious financial results to the unfortunate object of his attack." (First Western Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 860, 867, 261 Cal.Rptr. 116.) The legislative purpose would be frustrated by a construction of the statute which would permit a vexatious litigant to avoid the protection afforded potential targets simply by obtaining counsel.
Our construction of the statute is further supported by its legislative history, as well as the limited case law and commentary. The vexatious litigant statute was enacted in 1963 at the request of the State Bar. (38 State Bar J. 489, 663-664.) As initially enacted, the definition of "vexatious litigant" in section 391 was substantially identical to current subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of section 391. (Stats.1963, ch. 1471, § 1, p. 3038.) A commentator recognized that the statute (Comment, The Vexatious Litigant (1966) 54 Cal.L.Rev. 1769, 1782 and fn. 58.)
The Court of Appeal later concluded that "[t]he provisions of the vexatious litigant statute ... do not preclude a stay or dismissal because an attorney is used in the action in which the motion is made." (Muller v. Tanner (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 438, 444, 82 Cal.Rptr. 734.) In Muller, the trial court declared the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, under the provisions of section 391, subdivision (b)(1), in a civil action in which the plaintiff appeared in propria persona. The trial court ordered the plaintiff to furnish security. (2 Cal.App.3d at p. 441, 82 Cal.Rptr. 734; Muller v. Tanner (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 445, 463, 82 Cal.Rptr. 738.) Instead, the plaintiff refiled the identical complaint, but over the signature of an attorney. 2 Prior to dismissing the first action for the plaintiff's failure to furnish security, the trial court exercised its inherent power to dismiss the second action as sham, fictitious, or without merit. (2 Cal.App.3d 438, 441-443, 82 Cal.Rptr. 734.)
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank
...who employs an attorney avoids the prefiling requirements but may still have to post security. (See Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 838, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 42.) brought or maintained" (§ 391, subd. (e)), "may move ... for an order requiring the plaintiff to fu......
-
State v. Harrison
...required.6 The vexatious litigant statutes (Code Civ. Proc., 391 et seq.) were first codified in 1963. (Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 838, 841; Stats. 1963, ch. 1471, 1, p. 3038.) These statutes, which are constitutional (In re Whitaker (1992) 6 Cal.App.......
-
Forrest v. State
...the reach of the vexatious litigant statute. (Added by Stats.1990, ch. 621 (Sen.Bill. No. 2675); see generally Camerado, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 843, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 42["[a] review of the 1990 amendments demonstrates the Legislature's intent to broaden the reach of the vexatious litigant......
-
People v. Harrison
...The vexatious litigant statutes (Code Civ. Proa, § 391 et seq.) were first codified in 1963. (Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal. App.4th 838, 841, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 42; Stats. 1963, ch. 1471, § 1, p. 3038.) These statutes, which are constitutional (In re Whitaker (1992......