This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 04/21/2021 at 00:01:51 (UTC).

Colombo v. Superior Court of Orange County

Case Summary

On 10/16/2020 Colombo filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court of Orange County. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division 3 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is McCormick, Melissa. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***9538

  • Filing Date:

    10/16/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

McCormick, Melissa

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Ralph Colombo

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Respondent

Superior Court of Orange County

Hon,. Melissa R. Mccormick Dept. C13 700 Civic Center Drive West

Santa Ana, CA 92701

Interested Parties

Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs

Andrew J. Pyka

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Interested Party Attorney

Robert T. Dolan

Attorney at Gaglione, Dolan & Kaplan

11377 W. Olympic Blvd., 10Th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90064-1625

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketDescription: Record shipped to records center; Notes: E-Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DispositionDescription: Order dismissing petition; Disposition Type: Final

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketDescription: Order striking document.; Notes: Petitioner Ralph Colombo is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order. On October 16, 2020, petitioner filed a Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 (section 391.7) request to file new litigation in this court, to wit, a petition for extraordinary writ relief. Petitioner simultaneously filed a petition for writ of review of interlocutory orders and request for an immediate stay, along with a volume of exhibits. Because petitioner is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order, he must obtain permission to file this writ petition in propria persona from the presiding justice of this court. Permission shall be granted only if the presiding justice determines that the proposed litigation has merit and is not being filed to harass or delay. (Code Civ. Proc., 391.7, subd. (b).) The vexatious litigant must support the request to file new litigation by providing "facts and legal authority telling the court with specificity why [the proposed litigation] has merit." (In re R.H. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 678, 708, disapproved on other grounds in John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91.) An initial determination of "merit" under section 391.7, subdivision (b), does not mean the vexatious litigant will ultimately prevail. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 541 [standard for assessing merit of proposed appeal is "'the simple showing of an arguable issue'"].) By this petition, petitioner Colombo seeks relief from respondent court's denial of his ex parte applications for a ninety-day continuance of an upcoming hearing on real parties' pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. The ex parte applications cited Colombo's medical issues, including a note from Colombo's doctor requesting he be excused from all "court related proceedings" for ninety days. Respondent court granted a seven-day continuance of the hearing to October 29, 2020, but rejected the full relief sought by petitioner. Respondent court noted that parties are currently expected to participate by phone in all civil motion proceedings and there was no showing that petitioner was unable to participate in a hearing by phone. A trial court has broad authority to manage its own calendar and the scheduling of hearings. We review orders denying a continuance of a hearing for abuse of discretion. (Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 254.) Neither petitioner's application to file this litigation nor the petition itself makes a minimal showing (though the citation and application of legal authorities to the facts presented) that respondent court abused its discretion by granting a seven day continuance of the upcoming hearing (rather than 90 days). Moreover, even if an arguable issue regarding error had been made, a request for permission to file a petition for extraordinary writ relief also requires a minimal showing that there is no adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm will result if writ relief is not provided. Neither the request for permission nor the petition itself addresses whether petitioner's rights are adequately protected by the ability to participate in the upcoming hearing by phone and by a potential appeal of any adverse ruling. The request to file the petition for writ of mandate is DENIED. It does not appear that the proposed litigation has "merit." ( 391.7, subd. (b).) The clerk of this court is instructed to STRIKE the petition for writ of mandate. ( 397.1, subd. (c).) This proceeding is DISMISSED. The fee waiver request is DENIED as moot.Order mailed to petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketDescription: Application for waiver of filing fee filed.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketDescription: Application for waiver of filing fee filed.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketDescription: Original entry stricken - sequence no. not removed.; Notes: 1 volumes of exhibits (92 pages)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketDescription: Original entry stricken - sequence no. not removed.; Notes: Petitioner: Ralph ColomboPETITION STRICKEN per order dated 10/21/20

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Pet's fee waiver is missing the 2nd page.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketDescription: Vexatious litigant application filed (initial case event); Notes: By pet.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/16/2020
  • DocketDescription: Original entry stricken - sequence no. not removed.; Notes: 1-vol of exhibits. - 92 pgs

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/16/2020
  • DocketDescription: Original entry stricken - sequence no. not removed.; Notes: By pet Ralph Colombo. Immediate Stay Request (Petition filed as a writ of mandate. Petition is titled as a petition for writ of review of the trial court interlocutary order)PETITION STRICKEN per order dated 10/21/20

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs is a litigant

Latest cases where The Superior Court of Orange County is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DOLAN ROBERT TRACEY