This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 10:22:51 (UTC).

NICOLE Y JACKSON VS ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Case Summary

On 08/29/2017 NICOLE Y JACKSON filed an Other lawsuit against ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are EDWARD B. MORETON, JR. and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0641

  • Filing Date:

    08/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

EDWARD B. MORETON, JR.

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SCHOOLS ASPIRE PUBLIC

Appellant

JACKSON NICOLE Y.

Respondent and Plaintiff

SCHOOLS ASPIRE PUBLIC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Other Attorneys

CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR PC

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

4/26/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY AND NON-MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF NICOLE

5/4/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY AND NON-MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF NICOLE

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON ITS MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, ETC

5/7/2018: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON ITS MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, ETC

NOTICE OF RULING RE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS? EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON ITS MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES,

5/7/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS? EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON ITS MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES,

LIMITED CIVIL CASE DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON ITS MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY

5/7/2018: LIMITED CIVIL CASE DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON ITS MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY

Minute Order

5/7/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' TRIAL BRIEF

5/10/2018: DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' TRIAL BRIEF

DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST

5/10/2018: DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST

DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' WITNESS LIST

5/11/2018: DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' WITNESS LIST

PLAINTIFF NICOLE Y. JACKSON'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND; ETC.

5/18/2018: PLAINTIFF NICOLE Y. JACKSON'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND; ETC.

PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE

5/21/2018: PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY AND NONMONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF NICOLE Y. JACKS

5/21/2018: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS' MOTION FOR A DEEMED ADMITTED ORDER, TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY AND NONMONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF NICOLE Y. JACKS

Minute Order

5/21/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF NICOLE Y. JACKSON'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

5/21/2018: PLAINTIFF NICOLE Y. JACKSON'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

Minute Order

5/23/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

5/25/2018: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ETC.

6/14/2018: EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ETC.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL-CIVIL

6/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL-CIVIL

48 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketWrit of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketApplication and Order for Appearance and Examination; Filed by ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF NATHAN D. WIRTSCHAFTER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION AND ABSTRACT OF JUDGEMENT); Filed by ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed (B294962); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Association of Counsel for Defendant Aspire Public Schools); Filed by ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • DocketClerk's Notice of Non-Compliance of Default on Appeal (NOA:01/04/19 B294962); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • DocketAppellate Order Reinstating Appeal (Order reinstating appeal filed 1/4/19); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
84 More Docket Entries
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by NICOLE Y. JACKSON (Appellant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL CIVIL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF APPEAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketProof of Service by 1st Class Mail

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketNotice of Appeal; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****0641 Hearing Date: December 17, 2021 Dept: 26

Jackson v. Aspire Public Schools, et al (****0641)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF NICOLE JACKSON SHOULD NOT BE DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

(CCP ; 391, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court finds that Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson is a vexatious litigant and subject to a pre-filing order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. Plaintiff is prohibited from the filing of any new litigation in the courts of this state, in propria persona, without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Judge or their designee in the court where the litigation is proposed.

ANALYSIS:

On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant Appeal of Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner against Defendant Aspire Public Schools (“Defendant”). At the Case Management Conference on January 4, 2018, the Court set the Final Status Conference for May 18, 2018, and the court trial date for May 23, 2018. (Ibid.)

On May 21, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming the Matters in Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admission Admitted, and for Monetary and Nonmonetary Sanctions. (Order, filed 5/21/18, ¶¶1, 4.) Pursuant to that ruling, the Court ordered that any evidence offered by Plaintiff at trial would be excluded. (Id. at ¶4.) When the matter came for trial on May 23, 2018, the Court noted its earlier ruling excluding Plaintiff’s evidence and granted Defendant’s motion for nonsuit per Code of Civil Procedure section 581. (Minute Order, 5/23/18.)

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion for New Trial. Following denial of Plaintiff’s ex parte application to extend the time to file the Motion for New Trial, the Court entered its order dismissing the action with prejudice on June 15, 2018. (Order Granting Dismissal With Prejudice, 06/15/18.)

Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment (“the first Motion to Vacate”) on June 22, 2018. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Motion to Set Aside (“the First Amended Motion to Vacate”) to be heard on the same date. However, Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on October 25, 2018, and the Court denied the First Amended Motion to Vacate. (Minute Order, 10/25/18.)

On December 10, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment. (Minute Order, 12/10/18.) On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the May 23, 2018, order. The appeal was dismissed on May 14, 2019, due to Plaintiff’s default. (Remittitur, filed 5/15/19.)

On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Set Aside Judgment (“the Second Motion to Vacate”), which was denied on October 29, 2019. (Minute Order, 10/29/19.)

Plaintiff filed a third Motion to Set Aside Judgment on September 28, 2020, which was never heard because Plaintiff took the matter off calendar. Plaintiff then filed a fourth Motion to Set Aside Judgment (“the fourth Motion to Vacate”) on February 16, 2021. The fourth Motion to Vacate came for hearing on March 25, 2021, and was continued to April 8, 2021, following oral argument. (Minute Order, 03/25/21) On April 7, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to vacate the order continuing the hearing on the fourth Motion to Vacate. (Minute Order, 04/07/21.) On April 8, 2021, the Court issued a ruling placing the fourth Motion to Vacate off calendar. (Minute Order, 04/08/21.) On April 16, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to place the Fourth Motion to Vacate back on calendar.

Plaintiff filed a fifth Motion to Vacate Judgment (“the Fifth Motion to Vacate”) on September 24, 2021. On November 4, 2021, after considering the moving papers, the Court ruled that the fifth Motion to Vacate Judgment be placed off calendar. (Minute Order, 11/04/21, pp. 1-3.) At the same hearing, the Court set an Order to Show Cause regarding why Plaintiff should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subject to a pre-filing order. (Id. at p. 4.) The Order to Show Cause is set for hearing on December 17, 2021, and any response was to be filed and served at least nine (9) court days before the hearing date. (Id. at pp. 4-5.)

To date, no response to the Order to Show Cause has been filed.

Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Deemed a Vexatious Litigant

“The vexatious litigant statutes ([Code of Civil Procedure] ;; 391–391.7) are designed to curb misuse of the court system by those persistent and obsessive litigants who, repeatedly litigating the same issues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of the court system and other litigants.” (Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1169.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b) defines a vexatious litigant as a person who:

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

(Code Civ. Proc., ; 391, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff meets the definition under subdivisions (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). First, Plaintiff has repeatedly sought to relitigate the validity of the final determination made in this action. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for nonsuit on May 23, 2018 and entered judgment against Plaintiff on June 15, 2018. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment, which was set for hearing on October 25, 2018. Two months before the hearing, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment and scheduled it for the same date. Yet on the date of the hearing, Plaintiff made no appearance. (Minute Order, 10/25/18.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment at the hearing on October 25, 2018, and Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling on the next day. (Notice of Ruling, filed 10/29/18.)

Plaintiff then tried set aside the judgment by ex parte application on December 10, 2018. The ex parte application was denied for failing to show sufficient exigent circumstances, which is the statutory requirement for ex parte relief. (Minute Order, 12/10/18; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202, subd. (c).)

On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the order entered on May 23, 2018, marking Plaintiff’s third attempt to relitigate the validity of the judgment. After defaulting twice, Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on May 14, 2019. (Remittitur, filed 05/15/19.)

Plaintiff then resumed relitigating the validity of the judgment in this Court by filing a second Motion to Vacate Judgment. Among the issues raised, Plaintiff asserted that the judgment was void because Defendant’s Motion for Nonsuit was improperly granted. Despite filing this renewed challenge on July 30, 2019, Plaintiff did not appear a day later for the judgment debtor examination set for July 31, 2019. (Minute Order, 07/31/19.) The Court denied the second Motion to Vacate Judgment on October 29, 2019, and Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling on October 30, 2019. (Notice of Ruling, filed 10/30/19.) [1]

Plaintiff filed a third Motion to Vacate Judgment on September 28, 2020. Once again Plaintiff contended that the court erred in denying her right to a jury trial and in granting nonsuit. On the day before the hearing and, conveniently, the same date that the Court issued its tentative ruling denying the third Motion to Vacate Judgment, Plaintiff rescheduled the hearing. Once the hearing was reset for March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a fourth Motion to Vacate Judgment to be heard on that date, instead of proceeding with the hearing on the third Motion to Vacate Judgment. On March 25, 2021, the Court heard oral argument and continued the hearing to April 8, 2021. (Minute Order, 03/25/21.) Despite having continued the hearing herself numerous times, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application asking the Court to vacate the order of continuance as baseless. That ex parte application was denied. (Minute Order, 04/07/21.) When the Court placed the fourth Motion to Vacate Judgment off calendar at the hearing on April 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed yet another ex parte application on April 13, 2021. This application sought to reinstate the hearing on the fourth Motion to Vacate Judgment and was denied on April 16, 2021. (Minute Order, 04/16/21.)

Undeterred, Plaintiff filed a fifth Motion to Vacate Judgment, which set to be heard on November 4, 2021. As before, on the day before the hearing and the same day the Court’s tentative ruling was posted, Plaintiff tried to continue the hearing date. The Court did not allow the continuance and after hearing the fifth Motion to Vacate Judgment, placed the motion off calendar. (Minute Order, 11/04/21.)

The above demonstrates that through motions to vacate judgment, ex parte applications, and an appeal, Plaintiff has, over the course of three and a half years, brought seven different and unsuccessful attempts to relitigate the validity of the judgment in this action. Plaintiff’s seven attempts at relitigating the action against Defendant qualify under the definition of vexation per subdivision (b)(2).

For the same reason, the Court finds Plaintiff repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions or other papers and engaged in other tactics that were frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay under subdivision (b)(3). To be clear, none of the seven unsuccessful attempts to relitigate the validity of the judgment against Defendant had merit. Tellingly, as to two of these motions to vacate judgment—the original Motion to Vacate Judgment filed on June 22, 2018, and the third Motion to Vacate Judgment filed on September 28, 2020—Plaintiff abandoned without explanation. In fact, four motions challenging the validity of the judgment argued contentions raised in her previously dismissed appeal—the judgment was void because Plaintiff was denied her right to a jury trial and the nonsuit was granted in error. To be sure, these post-appeal motions to vacate judgment were clearly unmeritorious. Even more, Plaintiff filed numerous meritless ex parte applications including an ex parte application to extend the time to file a motion for new trial that the Court denied on June 14, 2018. (Minute Order, 06/14/18.) Another meritless ex parte application was filed on April 7, 2021, to vacate the order continuing the hearing on the fourth Motion to Vacate Judgment. In sum, these unmeritorious motions and papers are vexatious under subdivision (b)(3).

Finally, as noticed in the supplemental OSC issued on November 10, 2021, Plaintiff meets the definition under subdivisions (b)(1). As set forth in the September 18, 2019 minute order in Nicole Y. Jackson v. Cudahy Inn, Inc. (BC719288), which the court previously has taken judicial notice, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson filed 15 lawsuits from March 4, 2015, to December 5, 2015, that were determined adversely to Plaintiff. Since September 18, 2019, four more cases that were identified as pending have also appeared to have been determined adversely to Plaintiff.

1. Nicole Y. Jackson v. Mediscan, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 18STLC07348;

filed on May 21, 2018; dismissed with prejudice on December 9, 2019.

2. Nicole Y. Jackson v. NK Properties, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC720090;

filed on August 30, 2018; dismissed with prejudice on May 13, 2021.

3. Nicole Y. Jackson v. Craft Beer Guild Distributing of Los Angeles, LLC, Los Angeles

Superior Court Case No. 19STLC00366; filed on January 11, 2019; dismissed with prejudice on April 17, 2020.

4. Nicole Y Jackson v. New Mediscan II, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.

19STLC03580; filed on April 11, 2019; dismissed with prejudice on December 9, 2019.

From review of those court files, the court also learned of an additional prosecution initiated by Plaintiff Nicole Y Jackson finally determined adversely to Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson.

5. Nicole Y Jackson v. New Mediscan II, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.

19STCV12587; filed on April 11, 2019; dismissed with prejudice on December 9, 2019.

As such, in the immediately preceding seven-year period, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been finally determined adversely to Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson.

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson is a vexatious litigant and subject to a pre-filing order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. Plaintiff is prohibited from the filing of any new litigation in the courts of this state, in propria persona, without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Judge or their designee in the court where the litigation is proposed. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 391.7, subd. (a).)

Court clerk to give notice.


[1] The 10/28/19 register of actions conflicts with the minute order and the filed notice of ruling. The register of actions notation indicates that Plaintiff requested a continuance and that the hearing was continued to January 3, 2020, which was placed off calendar on January 3, 2020,when neither party appeared, because, as reflected in the minute order of 10/29/19 and the notice of ruling of 10/30/19, the motion was already denied on 10/29/19. (Minute Order, 01/03/20).]

'


b'

Case Number: ****0641 Hearing Date: November 4, 2021 Dept: 26

Jackson v. Aspire Public Schools, et al. ****0641

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

(CCP ;; 473(b), 631)

RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

The Court also sets an Order to Show Cause hearing for Friday, December 17, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson is ordered to appear in person and show cause re: why Nicole Y. Jackson should not be declared a vexatious litigant and be subject to a pre-filing order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. Any response to this Order to Show Cause shall be served on all parties and filed directly in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse no later than nine (9) court days before the above hearing date.

ANALYSIS:

On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant Appeal of Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner against Defendant Aspire Public Schools (“Defendant”). On the same date, the Court granted Plaintiff Request for Fee Waiver.

On September 5, 2017, the Court issued an order setting the Case Management Conference for January 4, 2018 and gave notice to the parties on the same date. (Notice of Case Management Conference, 09/05/17.)

At the Case Management Conference on January 4, 2018, the Court noted that no jury fees had been posted as of 4:30 p.m. (Minute Order, 01/04/18.) The Court set a Final Status Conference for May 18, 2018 and the court trial for May 23, 2018. (Ibid.)

On May 21, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for order deeming the matters in Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Jackson admitted, and for monetary and nonmonetary sanctions. (Order, filed 5/21/18, ¶¶1, 4.) Pursuant to that ruling, the Court ordered that any evidence offered by Plaintiff at trial would be excluded. (Id. at ¶4.) When the matter came for trial on May 23, 2018, the Court noted its earlier ruling excluding Plaintiff’s evidence and granted Defendant’s motion for nonsuit per Code of Civil Procedure section 581. (Minute Order, 5/23/18.)

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion for New Trial. Following denial of Plaintiff’s ex parte application to extend the time to file the Motion for New Trial, the Court entered its order dismissing the action with prejudice on June 15, 2018. (Order Granting Dismissal With Prejudice, 06/15/18.)

Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment (“the first Motion to Vacate”) on June 22, 2018. On August 31, 2018, prior to the hearing, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Motion to Set Aside (“the First Amended Motion to Vacate”). Among other issues, Plaintiff alleged that she timely asserted her right to a jury trial and was nevertheless denied her right to a jury trial. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on October 25, 2018, and the Court denied the First Amended Motion to Vacate on the same date. (Minute Order, 10/25/18.)

On December 10, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment. (Minute Order, 12/10/18.) On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the May 23, 2018 order. The appeal was dismissed on May 14, 2019 due to Plaintiff’s default. (Remittitur, filed 5/15/19.)

On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the second Motion to Set Aside Judgment (“the Second Motion to Vacate”). Among the issues raised, Plaintiff asserted that the judgment was void because Defendant’s Motion for Nonsuit was improperly granted. When neither party appeared at the hearing on January 3, 2020, the Court placed the Second Motion to Vacate off calendar. (Minute Order, 01/03/20.) Plaintiff filed a third Motion to Set Aside Judgment on September 28, 2020. Once again Plaintiff contended that the court erred in denying her right to a jury trial and in granting nonsuit. The Motion was never heard because Plaintiff took the matter off calendar. Plaintiff then filed the fourth Motion to Set Aside Judgment (“the fourth Motion to Vacate”) on February 16, 2021. Plaintiff again argued that the court improperly denied her right to a jury trial and improperly granted nonsuit. The fourth Motion to Vacate came for hearing on March 25, 2021 and was continued to April 8, 2021 following oral argument. (Minute Order, 03/25/21) On April 7, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to vacate the order continuing the hearing on the fourth Motion to Vacate. (Minute Order, 04/07/21.) On April 8, 2021, the Court issued a ruling placing the fourth Motion to Vacate off calendar. (Minute Order, 04/08/21.) On April 16, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to place the Fourth Motion to Vacate back on calendar.

Plaintiff filed the fifth and instant Motion to Vacate Judgment on September 24, 2021. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

As with some of Plaintiff’s previous motions, no proof of service of the instant Motion to Vacate has been filed demonstrating that Defendant was served with the Motion or given notice of the hearing. This alone is grounds to deny the Motion because failure to give notice of a motion is a violation of the statutory requirements and of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown that the judgment is void and should be vacated under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) states that “[t]he court may, .... on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 473, subd. (d).) There is no time limit on when a void judgment can be challenged. (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 526 [citing Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830; Code Civ. Proc., ; 473, subd. (d)].) “A judgment is void when there is a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person.” (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660 [citing Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 259, 267].)

Plaintiff argues she was denied the constitutional right to a jury trial, which the law deems shall be preserved inviolate. (See Code Civ. Proc., ; 631, subd. (a).) Plaintiff argues that she was deprived of a jury trial despite obtaining a waiver of jury fees. The record shows, however, that no timely waiver of jury fees was obtained in this case.

Jury fees “shall be due on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 631, subd. (c).) Plaintiff did not timely pay the jury fees or obtain a fee waiver. The case management conference was scheduled for January 4, 2018. As noted in the minute order for the hearing, “As of 4:30 p.m., no jury fees have been posted.” As such, the Court found that Plaintiff waived her right to a jury trial set the matter for a bench trial.

At some point on January 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a fee waiver with respect to jury fees. However, the fee waiver was not effective until January 11, 2018.[1] Plaintiff could have filed a motion for relief from the waiver of jury trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631, subdivision (g). Despite Plaintiff’s contention that she raised the jury trial issue multiple times, no evidence or Court record demonstrates any such request for relief. (See Motion, Jackson Decl., ¶3.) Moreover, Plaintiff cites to no authority holding that denial of the right to a jury trial or denial of a motion for relief renders the judgment void, i.e., entered without subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. Denial of the right to a jury trial or denial of a motion for relief from waiver of the right, had one been brought, should have raised on appeal. (See Mackovska v. Viewcrest Road Properties LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1, 9.)

Plaintiff alternatively argues that the judgment is void because the Court did not sufficiently articulate the grounds for nonsuit. Again, even if true, Plaintiff does not show that this failure by the Court makes the judgment void. An order granting nonsuit is subject to appeal according to Plaintiff’s own authority. (See Markwell v. Sykes (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 642, 651 [citing Lawless v. Calaway, 24 Cal.2d 81, 92].) Plaintiff’s appeal of the judgment was dismissed following default and the time to perfect such an appeal, on whatever grounds, has long since passed. (Remittitur, filed 5/15/19; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.822.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Furthermore, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause hearing re: why Nicole Y. Jackson should not be declared a vexatious litigant and be subject to a pre-filing order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 for Friday, December 17, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

A “vexatious litigant” is defined in Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) ; 391, subdivision (b) as “a person who has, while acting in propria persona, initiated or prosecuted numerous meritless litigations, relitigated or attempted to relitigate matters previously determined against him or her, repeatedly pursued unmeritorious or frivolous tactics in litigation, or who has previously been declared a vexatious litigant in a related action.” (Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1169-1170.) CCP ;; 391 through 391.7 “are designed to curb misuse of the court system by those persistent and obsessive litigants who, repeatedly litigating the same issues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of the court system and other litigants.” (Id.)

Based on the foregoing, it appears Jackson may be a vexatious litigant as defined by CCP ; 391 (b)(3) in that, while acting in propria persona, she has repeatedly “file[d] unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers . . . or engage[d] in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” As set forth in the procedural history outlined above, Plaintiff has unsuccessfully made five separate attempts to vacate judgment in this action, four of which occurred after her appeal was dismissed on May 14, 2021, and all four of which raise identical issues. Namely, Plaintiff has persistently contended that the denial of her right to a jury trial and the granting of the nonsuit renders the judgment void. Accordingly, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson is ordered to appear in person and show cause re: why Nicole Y. Jackson should not be declared a vexatious litigant and be subject to a pre-filing order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, which would prohibit the filing of any new litigation in the courts of this state, in propria persona, without first obtaining leave of the Presiding Judge or the Presiding Judge’s designee in the court where the litigation is proposed.

Any response to this Order to Show Cause shall be served on all parties and filed directly in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse no later than nine (9) court days before the above hearing date. Proof of service of the response must also be filed with the Court no later than nine (9) court days before the above hearing date. Failure to comply with this order may result in the Court declining to consider Plaintiff’s response to the Order to the Show Cause.

Court clerk to give notice.


[1] After obtaining an initial fee waiver on August 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Additional Request for Wavier of Fees on January 4, 2018, asking to waive jury fees and expenses. (Request to Waive Additional Court Fees, files 01/04/18.) Due to no action on the Additional Fee Waiver by the Court, the request was granted by operation of law five court days later, on January 11, 2018. (Cal. Govt. Code, ; 68634, subd. (f).) The right to a jury trial can be waived by failing to timely pay jury fees. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 631, subds. (f)(5) and (f)(6).)

'


Case Number: ****0641    Hearing Date: April 8, 2021    Dept: 26

Jackson v. Aspire Public Schools, et al.

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

(CCP ; 473)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR

ANALYSIS:

On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant Appeal of Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner against Defendant Aspire Public Schools (“Defendant”). On May 21, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for order deeming the matters in Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Jackson admitted and ordered that any evidence offered by Plaintiff at trial would be excluded. (Order, filed 5/21/18, ¶¶1, 4.) Pursuant to that order, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for nonsuit on the May 23, 2018 trial date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581. (Minute Order, 5/23/18.) On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion for New Trial.

Following the trial court’s denial of Plaintiff’s ex parte application to extend the time to file the Motion for New Trial, the order dismissing the action with prejudice was entered on June 15, 2018. On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment (“the first Motion to Vacate”). Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Motion to Set Aside (“the First Amended Motion to Vacate”). Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on October 25, 2018 and the Court denied the First Amended Motion to Vacate. (Minute Order, 10/25/18.)

On December 10, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment. (Minute Order, 12/10/18.) On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the May 23, 2018 order. The appeal was dismissed on May 14, 2019 due to Plaintiff’s default. (Remittitur, filed 5/15/19.)

On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the second Motion to Set Aside Judgment (“the Second Motion to Vacate”). When neither party appeared at the hearing on January 3, 2020, the Court placed the Second Motion to Vacate off calendar. (Minute Order, 1/3/20.)

Plaintiff filed a third Motion to Set Aside Judgment on September 28, 2020, which was ultimately never heard because Plaintiff took the matter off calendar.

Plaintiff filed the instant (fourth) Motion to Set Aside Judgment (“the instant Motion to Vacate”) on February 16, 2021. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition on March 16, 2021. The instant Motion to Vacate came for hearing on March 25, 2021 and was continued following oral argument. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Neither Notice of the instant Motion to Vacate nor the instant Motion to Vacate were served on Defendant. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) The Court cannot grant the instant Motion to Vacate without a demonstration that proper notice was provided to Defendant.

Furthermore, the trial court already ruled on Plaintiff’s request to vacate a purportedly legally erroneous judgment. On October 25, 2018, the trial court denied Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion to Vacate based on the argument made in Defendant’s opposition, which specifically addressed the propriety of the May 23, 2018 trial order. (Minute Order, 10/25/18; Opp. to First Amended Motion to Vacate, filed 10/12/18, pp. 9:10-19, 11:1-12:8.) In the instant Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff again reiterates her arguments regarding the discovery orders that led up to the trial on May 23, 2018 and the proceedings held on that date. As the trial court already addressed these arguments, it is improper for Plaintiff to bring another motion to vacate on the same basis.

Bringing another motion where the first was denied must be done as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b). The Court, however, has no jurisdiction to hear motions for reconsideration after entry of judgment. (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181-182.) Plaintiff’s recourse was to appeal the denial of the First Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment. (Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 [“an order denying a motion to vacate a void judgment is also appealable.”].) Plaintiff, in fact did file an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed following default. (Remittitur, filed 5/15/19.)

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Court clerk to give notice.



Case Number: ****0641    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 26

Jackson v. Aspire Public Schools, et al.

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

(CCP ;; 473(b), 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Vacate Void Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

 

ANALYSIS:

On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant Appeal of Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner against Defendant Aspire Public Schools (“Defendant”). On May 21, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for order deeming the matters in Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Jackson admitted and ordered that any evidence offered by Plaintiff at trial would be excluded. (Order, filed 5/21/18, ¶¶1, 4.) Pursuant to that order, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for nonsuit on the May 23, 2018 trial date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581. (Minute Order, 5/23/18.) On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion for New Trial.

Following the trial court’s denial of Plaintiff’s ex parte application to extend the time to file the Motion for New Trial, the order dismissing the action with prejudice was entered on June 15, 2018. On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Motion to Set Aside. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on October 25, 2018 and the Court denied the First Amended Motion to Vacate Dismissal Judgment. (Minute Order, 10/25/18.)

On December 10, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment. (Minute Order, 12/10/18.) On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the May 23, 2018 order. The appeal was dismissed on May 14, 2019 due to Plaintiff’s default. (Remittitur, filed 5/15/19.)

On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the second Motion to Set Aside [Void] Judgment. When neither party appeared at the hearing on January 3, 2020, the Court placed the second Motion to Set Aside Judgment off calendar. (Minute Order, 1/3/20.)

Plaintiff filed the third Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment on September 28, 2020. The third Motion was denied on January 28, 2021.

Plaintiff filed the instant (fourth) Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment on February 16, 2021. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition on March 16, 2021.

Discussion

Neither the Notice of Motion, Motion, nor Notice of Non-Opposition were served on Defendant. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) The Court cannot grant the instant Motion without a demonstration that proper notice was provided to Defendant.

Furthermore, the Court already ruled on Plaintiff’s third Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment on January 28, 2021. Bringing another motion where the first was denied must be done as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b). The Court, however, has no jurisdiction to hear motions for reconsideration after entry of judgment. (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181-182.) Plaintiff’s recourse was to appeal the denial of the Motion to Vacate Judgment. (Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 [“an order denying a motion to vacate a void judgment is also appealable.”].)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Vacate Void Judgment is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Court clerk to give notice.



Case Number: ****0641    Hearing Date: January 28, 2021    Dept: 26

Jackson v. Aspire Public Schools, et al.

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL

(CCP ;; 473(b), 664.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Vacate Void Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant Appeal of Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner against Defendant Aspire Public Schools (“Defendant”). On May 21, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for order deeming the matters in Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Jackson admitted and ordered that any evidence offered by Plaintiff at trial would be excluded. (Order, filed 5/21/18, ¶¶1, 4.) Pursuant to that order, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for nonsuit on the May 23, 2018 trial date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581. (Minute Order, 5/23/18.) On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion for New Trial.

Following the trial court’s denial of Plaintiff’s ex parte application to extend the time to file the Motion for New Trial, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice on June 15, 2018. On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Motion to Set Aside. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on October 25, 2018 and the Court denied the First Amended Motion to Vacate Dismissal of Judgment. (Minute Order, 10/25/18.)

On December 10, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment. (Minute Order, 12/10/18.) On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the May 23, 2018 order. The appeal was dismissed on May 14, 2019 due to Plaintiff’s default. (Remittitur, filed 5/15/19.)

On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the second Motion to Set Aside [Void] Judgment. When neither party appeared at the hearing on January 3, 2020, the Court placed the second Motion to Set Aside Judgment off calendar. (Minute Order, 1/3/20.)

Plaintiff filed the instant and third Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment on September 28, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Neither the Notice of Motion nor Motion was served on Defendant. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) The Court cannot grant the instant Motion without proper notice to Defendant.

Also, insofar as the Court already ruled on Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion to Set Aside the Judgment of Dismissal, the instant Motion filed on September 28, 2020 is essentially a renewed request for relief already sought and denied. There is no statutory authority allowing a party to repeatedly seek the same relief previously considered and denied. Otherwise, there would be no end to the litigation.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Nicole Y. Jackson’s Motion to Vacate Void Judgment is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS is a litigant