Pittman v. Beck Park Apts. Ltd., No. B266654 (D2d7 Feb. 27, 2018)
Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant back in 2010. He’s been trying to get out from under that order ever since. His main argument seems to be that the court that declared him to be vexatious didn’t have jurisdiction to do so, because he voluntarily dismissed the case where the vexatious litigant motion was pending before that decision on the motion. I.e, he tried to avoid being declared a vexatious litigant by using a classic move out of the vexatious litigant textbook.
He’s been raising this argument up and down the courts for the better part of a decade, mostly being stymied by rulings on procedural grounds. So the Court here decides that enough is enough and reaches the merits of his beef. The vacation motion was brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), which permits a court to vacate a void judgment. A § 473(d) motion doesn’t have a time limit, so long as the voidness can be ascertained from the face of the record, which is the case with Plaintiff’s jurisdiction argument. So the Court of Appeal decides to reach the merits of the argument.
But it’s just another chance for Plaintiff to lose. It is true that a voluntary dismissal generally deprives a court of jurisdiction to enter further orders. There are, however, a bunch of exceptions to this rule, most of which exist to vindicate dismissed parties’ statutory rights on collateral issues that don’t go to the merits. Like when a plaintiff tries to avoid an award of attorneys’ fees or sanctions by dismissing the case. The Court here finds that the same rationales merit retaining jurisdiction to decide a pending motion to have someone declared a vexatious litigant when the litigant tries to weasel out of the finding by dismissing the case.
Plaintiff also raises some other challenges, but the Court finds that they are procedurally barred, for various reasons.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment