Caron v. Cal. State Bd. of Pharm.

• Decision Date: 15 November 2022
• Docket Number: D079386
• Parties: CRAYA C. CARON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

CRAYA C. CARON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Defendant and Respondent.

D079386

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

November 15, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No 37-2019-00022267-CU-WM-NC, Earl H. Maas, III, Judge. Affirmed.

Craya C. Caron, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Carl W. Sonne, Assistant Attorney General, Gregory J. Salute and Stephen A. Aronis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.

McCONNELL, P. J.

I INTRODUCTION

Proceeding in propria persona, Craya Caron filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus to compel the California State Board of Pharmacy (hereafter, the Board) to vacate its decision revoking Caron's pharmacist license. In response, the Board moved to declare Caron a vexatious litigant and require her to furnish $15,000 security (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 391 subd. (b)(1), 391.1).^[1] The trial court issued a minute order granting the Board's motion and ordering Caron to furnish $15,000 security. It also issued a prefiling order prohibiting Caron from filing new litigation in propria person without prior judicial approval (§ 391.7)-an order we affirmed in Caron v. Cal. State Bd. of Pharmacy (Sept. 18, 2020, D076660) [nonpub. opn.] (Caron). Ultimately, Caron did not furnish $15,000 security. Therefore, the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the Board.

Caron appeals the judgment of dismissal and challenges the minute order requiring her to furnish $15,000 security. In particular, she attacks the trial court's finding that she is a vexatious litigant, its finding that there is not a reasonable probability she will prevail in her mandamus action, the amount of the security requirement, and the constitutionality of the vexatious litigant statutes. Further, she challenges a trial court order denying her request to set aside the minute order and the prefiling order under section 473, subdivision (b).

We reject Caron's arguments and affirm the judgment of dismissal.

II

BACKGROUND^[2]

A. Background to the Prior Appeal

The following factual background is taken from this court's prior opinion in Caron, supra, D076660.

"The Board issued Caron a pharmacist license in 1976. In 2017, the Board ordered Caron to submit to a psychological examination which she did. The psychotherapist who performed the examination 'diagnosed [Caron] with a delusional disorder,' which the therapist opined 'seriously impacts [Caron's] ability to practice pharmacy in a safe manner.'

"Based on the results of the psychological examination, the Board's executive officer commenced a proceeding before the Board seeking to suspend or revoke Caron's license. A state administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a two-day hearing in October and November 2018 (in Riverside and Orange Counties, respectively). In December 2018, the ALJ issued a proposed decision revoking Caron's license. The Board adopted the ALJ's proposed decision, and later denied Caron's petition for reconsideration. The Board's decision became effective March 17, 2019.

"About six weeks later, Caron filed in propria persona a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the San Diego County Superior Court seeking to compel the Board to vacate its decision.

"The Board responded to Caron's petition by moving to (1) declare her a vexatious litigant, (2) require her to furnish $15,000 security as a condition of proceeding with her petition, and (3) dismiss the petition if Caron failed to furnish the required security. The Board did not seek a prefiling order prohibiting Caron from filing any new litigation without first obtaining leave of court. The Board's notice of motion specified a hearing date of July 26, 2019.

"The Board argued in its motion that Caron was a vexatious litigant because she had 'filed five or more lawsuits that have been finally determined adversely against [her] within the last seven years.' (§ 391, subd. (b)(1) [defining a vexatious litigant to include a person who '[i]n the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations ... that have been ... finally determined adversely to the person'].) The Board requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the final orders or opinions in the following 21 legal matters commenced by Caron in propria persona:

'1. September 5, 2013, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-Petition for writ of mandate from Case No. 30-2012-00544810 DENIED, Caron v. Orange County Superior Court: Select Portfolio Inc., Real Party in Interest, Case No. G048679;

'2. December 9, 2013, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-Appeal from Case No. 30-201200544810 DISMISSED, Caron v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. G048754;

'3. January 16, 2014, Orange County Superior Court-case DISMISSED based on plaintiff's request for voluntary dismissal, Caron v. CVS Pharmacy, Beach Garfield LLC, Case No. 30-2013-00658577 (voluntary dismissals count- see Tokerud v. Capitol Bank Sacramento (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 775, 779);

'4. November 12, 2014, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals- petition for writ of mandamus DENIED, Caron v. United States District Court, Central District, CVS Pharmacy, Real Party in Interest, Case No. 14-72765;

'5. April 10, 2015, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition from Case No. 30-2012-00544810 DENIED, Caron v. Orange County Superior Court; TD Service Company, Real Party in Interest, Case No. G051714;

'6. May 12, 2015, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, appeal DENIED, Caron v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and CVS Rx Services, Inc., Case No. 15-55632;

'7. May 29, 2015, Orange County Superior Court, Judgment of Dismissal in favor of Defendant TD Service Company, without leave to amend, Caron v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2012-00544810;

'8. June 26, 2015, Orange County Superior Court, Judgment of Dismissal in favor of Defendant PNC Bank, without leave to amend, Caron v. PNC Bank., Case No. 302015-00775577;

'9. May 10, 2016, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-Appeal from Case No. 30-201500775577 DISMISSED, Caron v. PNC Bank, Case No. G053268;

'10. May 31, 2016, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-Motion to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the appeal DENIED, Caron v. PNC Bank, Case No. G053268;

'11. July 15, 2016, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-Appeal from Case No. 30-201200544810 DISMISSED, Caron v. TD Service Company, Case No. G053257;

'12. August 8, 2016, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-petition for writ of mandate DENIED, Caron v. Superior Court, Lonnie Tiner, Real Party in Interest, Case No. E066516;

'13. April 3, 2017, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-Order Dismissing Appeal, Caron v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars Inc., Case No. G054648;

'14. May 10, 2017, [ ] San Bernardino Superior Court- Notice of Entry of Judgment in favor of Defendants, Caron v. Lonnie W. Tiner, DDS, et. al., Case No. CIVDS1518292;

'15. June 1, 2017, [ ] California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-Order Dismissing Petition for writ of mandate, Caron v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars Inc., Case No. G055017;

'16. June 9, 2017, United States District Court, Central District of California-Dismissal granted in favor of defendant Fletcher Jones as to all federal law claims, with prejudice, and as to all state-law claims, without prejudice to Caron advancing those in state court, Caron v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc., et. al., Case No. 8:17-cv-565 JLS JDE;

'17. June 22, 2017, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District-petition for writ of mandate DENIED, Caron v. Superior Court, Lonnie Tiner, Real Party in Interest, Case No. E068367;

'18. September 18, 2017, Orange County Superior Court, Judgments of Dismissal in favor of defendants Fletcher Jones, and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, with prejudice and without leave to amend, Caron v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars Inc., Case No. 30-2016-00840325;

'19. March 23, 2018, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Appeal from Case No. 8:17-cv-565 JLS JDE-Memorandum affirming dismissal on behalf of Fletcher Jones, Caron v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars. Inc., et. al., Case No. 17-55963;

'20. June 18, 2018 docket entry indicating the case was deemed closed on June 7, 2018, United States District Court, Central District of California-Order[s] denying IFP status[,] ... dismissing proposed class-action lawsuit, and dismissing a lawsuit without prejudice, Caron v. Virginia H[e]rold, Case No. EDVC 18-1194-R (KK); '21. October 15, 2018, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, both appeals from Case No. CIVDS1518292, and consolidated-Judgment for defendants affirmed, Caron v. Christopher K. Tiner, et. al., Case No. E066128[;] Caron v. Estate of Lonnie W. Tiner, et. al., Case No. E086673." (Bolding omitted.)

"Caron opposed the Board's motion on several grounds. Most relevant here, she argued the record showed she had 'filed only three litigations since 2012, NOT "21"' (underlining omitted), because multiple entries on the Board's request for judicial notice arose within a single lawsuit, or were not' "current litigation"' because they were 'filed and adjudicated many years prior to 2012.'

"The Board argued in reply that all 21 matters identified on the request for judicial notice qualified Caron as a vexatious litigant because each was a separate 'litigation' that was determined adversely to her during the relevant seven-year window.

"On July 25, 2019, the day before the noticed hearing on the...