Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Petitioner appealed an order requiring her to obtain approval for leave to file under the vexatious litigant statutes, Code Civ. Proc., 391-391.7, before continuing with her two related appeals from the judgment in favor of her landlord in an unlawful detainer action. The appellate division dismissed the appeal after reviewing petitioner's request to file new litigation by a vexatious litigant and found that she failed to demonstrate the appeals had merit and were not filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. Section 391.7's requirement for obtaining leave to file unquestionably applies to an appeal by a self-represented plaintiff who has previously been declared a vexatious litigant and made subject to a prefiling order. At issue was whether it similarly applied to a vexatious litigant defendant's appeal from an adverse judgment. Because it disregards section 391.7's express reference to actions by a plaintiff and would impede a self-represented defendant's right of access to the appellate courts without significantly advancing the underlying purpose of the vexatious litigant statutes, the court rejected this construction of section 391.7. Therefore, the court granted petitioner's petition for a writ of mandate and ordered the appellate division to vacate its order dismissing petitioner's appeal and to decide the appeal on the merits.View "John v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Ignacio Encarnacion and Norma Karla Farias were sued for unlawful detainer even though they had a valid lease and did nothing to warrant eviction. The case settled. They moved to amend the Superior Court Management Information System (SCOMIS) indices to replace their full names with their initials in order to hide the fact that they were defendants to the unlawful detainer action. Encarnacion and Farias argued that even though the unlawful detainer action was meritless, they could not obtain sufficient rental housing after prospective landlords learned that they had an unlawful detainer action filed against them. The superior court granted their motion and ordered that the indices be changed to show only their initials. The King County Superior Court Office of Judicial Administration objected and appealed the order. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed: "[a]lthough we sympathize with Encarnacion and Farias, and other renters in similar situations . . .[t]he public's interest in the open administration of justice prohibits the redaction of the indices in this case." View "Hundtofte v. Encarnacion" on Justia Law

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged that Ottovich owned or managed a Fremont apartment building. He advertised an apartment available for rent. Coleman called and expressed interest. He asked who would be living in the apartment, and she stated that she, her husband, and their young daughter would live there. Defendant responded that he would not rent the apartment to her. Coleman told him, “That’s discrimination.” He replied that he did not have to show her the apartment or rent it to her, and hung up. The Department alleged a “familial status” discrimination violation of Government Code section 19255, and sought compensatory and treble damages. Ottovich moved to dismiss the complaint as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The trial court denied the motion as frivolous, and awarded plaintiff $2,500. After several discovery abuses by Ottovich, followed by sanctions and warnings, the court entered a default judgment against him. The court vacated the default, but continued to treat his answer as stricken and treated the complaint’s allegations as judicially admitted. A jury assessed damages at $8,705. The appeals court affirmed, rejecting an argument that the court was required to reinstate his answer when it vacated the default judgment. View "Dept. of Fair Emp't & Hous. v. Ottovich" on Justia Law

Roland Riemers appealed a district court judgment dismissing his claims for unpaid rent, late fees, property damage, and punitive damages. Riemers leased a rental property he owned to Heidee Hill, who lived in the home with her family. After the Hills vacated the property, Riemers sued Hill, her husband, and their three children for unpaid rent, late fees, property damage, and punitive damages. The Hills filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, alleging Riemers' claims were frivolous, also sought attorney fees. The Hills also filed a counterclaim seeking damages for abuse of process. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. View "Riemers v. Hill" on Justia Law