NDORSED

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

10

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

11
12

KEVIN M.

13
14

No.

HEALY,

'

Dept.

39

Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

v.

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE

DEEMED A VEXATIOUS

15
16

04AS01711

LITIGANT AND SUBJECT TO A

M.

PRE-FILING ORDER

CYNTHIA ROSE,

17

Defendant.

18
19
20

Plaintiff is directed to show cause,

if any he has,

2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 39,

on

21

July 14,

why he, should

22

not be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to Civil Code

23

of Procedure section 39l(b) (3)

24

filing order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391. 7.

25

Plaintiff may file and serve papers in opposition to the

26

court's motion on or before July 1,

27

serve and file a response on or before July 8,

28

Plaintiff may then serve and file a reply on or before

and be subject to a pre-

2008.

Defendant may
2008.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

1
2

July 10,

2008.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 39l (b) (3)

a party

acting in propria persona may be deemed a vexatious litigant

if he or she "repeatedly files unmeritorious motions,

pleadings,

or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely

intended to cause unnecessary delay".

plaintiff has filed the following pleadings and motions all

or some of which may be indicia of vexatious litigation as

10
11

or other papers,

conducts unnecessary discovery,

In this case,

defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 39l (b) (3):

(1) On April 27,

2004,

plaintiff filed a civil.

12

complaint for damages against his former client claiming

13

fraud and deceit.

14

this court dated July 21,

15

demurrer without leave to amend and her anti-SLAPP motion.

16

This order was appealed to the Third District Court of

17

Appeal.

18

February 1,

19

as untimely.

20

(2)

(The complaint was dismissed by order of

2004 sustaining defendant's

By order of the Court of Appeal filed

2007,

the appeal as to this ruling was dismissed

On June 16, 2004,

plaintiff filed a request for

21

stay of hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion on the ground he

22

had active military service.

23

order of this court dated July 21,

24

(3)

On July 16,

2004,

(That request was denied by

2004.)

plaintiff filed a motion to

25

disqualify the Honorable Judge Shelleyanne W.L.

26

cause pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1.

27

(By an order dated July 22,

28
2

2004,

Chang for

Judge Chang struck the

challenge as untimely,

repetitious) .

(4)

lacking in merit on its face,

On January 21,

2005,

and

plaintiff filed a motion to

disqualify the undersigned for cause pursuant to Code of

Civil Procedure section 170. 1.

order of the court dated February 2,

(5)

On February 24,

2005,

(The motion was stricken by

2005. )

plaintiff filed a patently

unmeritorious motion to set aside the court's July 21,

ruling dismissing his complaint.

10
11

this court on March 21,

(6)

On May 25,

2004

(The motion was denied by

2005. )

2005,

plaintiff appealed this court's

12

dismissal of his complaint and the court's award of attorney

13

fees to defendant.

14

to be untimely.

15

the defendant was denied on the merits.)

16

(7)

(Appeal of the dismissal was determined

The appeal of the award of attorney fees to

On June 29,

2007,

plaintiff brought a patently

17

unmeritorious motion to reconsider the court's award of

18

attorney fees for defendant and to set aside judgment.

19

motion was denied by order of this court dated August 6,

20

2007. )

21

(8) On August 6,

2007,

plaintiff filed a motion to

22

disqualify the undersigned for cause pursuant to Code of

23

Civil Procedure section 170. 1.

24

order of the court dated August 15,

25

it was untimely,

26

for disqualification. )

27
28

(9)

(The

(The motion was stricken by

2007 on the grounds that

repetitious and set forth no legal grounds

On October 17,

2007,

plaintiff filed a third

motion to disqualify the undersigned for cause pursuant to

3

(The undersigned

Code of Civil Procedure section 170. 1.

answered this challenge,

Judge,

County Superior Court.

on various grounds including that it was untimely and

repetitious.)

whereupon it was heard by

the Honorable Lesley D.

(10) On May 5,

Holland of the San Joaquin

Judge Holland denied the challenge

2008,

plaintiff filed a fourth motion to

disqualify the undersigned.

ground that it untimely,

10

a nother

(The motion was stricken on the

repetitious,

and set forth no legal

ground for disqualification. )

11
12
13
14
15

DATED:

'-J..o c8
DAVID W. ABBOTT
Judge of the Superior Court

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

CJBNS.ORG