Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (Judge Deborah Servino)

Defendant County of Orange?s unopposed motion for an order declaring Plaintiff Sholeh Clayton to be a vexatious litigant, requiring her to furnish security, and prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any new litigation in pro per without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge, is granted.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b), a self-represented individual may be declared vexatious for commencing and/or maintaining at least five prior in pro per suits in the immediately preceding seven-year period that have been finally determined adversely to the person or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing. ?(Code Civ. Proc., ? 391, subd. (b)(1).)? ?Finally determined? means that all avenues for direct review (appeal) have been exhausted or the time for appeal has expired.? (Childs v. PaineWebber Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 982, 994.)? Voluntarily dismissing the action counts as an adverse determination, Tokerud v. Capitol Bank Sacramento (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 775, 779, but interlocutory decisions do not.? (Fink v. Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173; Garcia v Lacey (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 402, 406, fn. 4 [action is counted as being within seven-year period, as long as it was filed or maintained during that period, which is measured as of the time the motion is filed].)

A self-represented individual may also be declared vexatious for repeatedly filing unmeritorious motions and papers, or otherwise engaging in tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.? It falls within the trial court?s discretion to determine what qualifies as ?repeated? and ?unmeritorious? motions/tactics.? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 391, subd. (b)(3); see Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 971-972 [dozens of motions in a single action].)? Even if each filing viewed in isolation might be reasonable, multiple requests for the same relief or for reconsideration of prior rulings might qualify.? (See Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 632.)

The term ?litigation? is broadly defined as any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained, or pending in any state or federal court.? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 391, subd. (a).) It also includes an appeal or certain civil writ proceedings filed in an appellate court.? (Garcia v. Lacey, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 406 [summary denials of writ petitions do not necessarily constitute a litigation that has been finally determined adversely to the person]; Marriage of Rifkin & Carty, supra, 234 Cal. App. 4th at 1345-1346, 1348-1349 [?litigation? includes proceedings under Family Code and motions seeking order to show cause re contempt].)

Defendant?s request for judicial notice is granted.? (Evid. Code, ? 452.)? Defendant has established the existence of at least five actions commenced or maintained in pro per by Plaintiff, that were terminated adversely to her in the last seven years:? (1) Clayton v. Bush, case no. 2010-00415606; (2) Clayton v. Robertson, case no. 2013-00662922; (3) Clayton v. CVS Caremark, case no. 2014-00703241; (4) Clayton v. Allstate Ins. Company, case no. 2014-00738887; (5) Clayton v. Nespeca, case no. 2014-00742472; (6) Clayton v. Roug, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. SS025667; (7) Clayton v. Jons, Los Angeles Superior Court case number SS025668; (8) Clayton v. County of Orange, Court of Appeal case no. G053448; (9) Clayton v. County of Orange, Court of Appeal case no. G053930 ; (10) Clayton v. County of Orange, Court of Appeal case no. G053635; (11) Clayton v. County of Orange, United States District Court for the Central District of California, case no. SACV 16-1531; and (12) Clayton v. Dunivin?s Towing, case no. 2014-00698226.

Furthermore, Defendant has established Plaintiff has no reasonable probability of succeeding in this case.? Plaintiff?s pleading is unintelligible and convoluted.? Since Plaintiff has not been able to sufficiently set forth her claims in a logical manner, she cannot show a probability of prevailing.? Defendant has thus met its initial burden of showing that Plaintiff herein has ?no reasonable probability? of prevailing in this action.? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 391.1; Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 641.)

The Court grants Defendant?s motion to enter a prefiling order, which prohibits Plaintiff from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in pro per without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.? Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 391.7, subd. (a).)? Defendant shall prepare and submit for the Court?s signature the mandatory Judicial Council Form MC-700.

The Clerk shall provide the Judicial Council a copy of the signed MC-700 form.? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 391.7, subd. (f).)

No later than January 11, 2017, Plaintiff shall file a bond of $25,000. (Code Civ. Proc., ? 391.3.)? If Plaintiff fails to furnish the security as ordered, the litigation shall be dismissed as to the moving Defendant. ?(Code Civ. Proc., ? 391.4.)

Litigation is stayed until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving Defendant has been given written notice of it.? Once the stay is lifted, Plaintiff may then schedule a hearing on her motion to amend.

The Court schedules a Status Conference re: Posting Bond and/or Dismissal for January 27, 2017 at 9 am in this Department.

Defendant County of Orange shall give notice of the ruling, the Order, and the January 27, 2017 Status Conference.