Colombo v. KINKLE RODIGER & SPRIGGS et al.

DocketDescription: Record shipped to records center; Notes: All documents scanned.

DocketDescription: Case complete.

DocketDescription: Remittitur issued.; Notes: Copy mailed to appellant.

DocketDescription: Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.; Notes: Filed 6-15-22

DocketDescription: Service copy of petition for review received.; Notes: by appellant Ralph Colombo. S274314

DispositionDescription: Order dismissing petition; Disposition Type: Final

DocketDescription: Dismissal order filed.; Notes: Petitioner Ralph Colombo is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order. (See Code Civ. Proc., 391.7.)1 Vexatious litigants must obtain permission to file "new litigation" in propria persona from the "presiding justice or presiding judge" of the court in which it is proposed to be filed. Permission shall be granted only if the presiding justice or presiding judge determines that the proposed litigation has merit and is not being filed to harass or delay. ( 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'"].) On March 30, 2022, petitioner submitted a request to file new litigation. The new litigation petitioner seeks to file is a "petition for clarification" of this court's opinion in case number G055823, which was filed on May 6, 2019. This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a new action asking for clarification of a prior opinion. (Cal. Const., Art. VI, 10 [setting forth limited areas of law in which courts of appeal have original jurisdiction].) This is not properly considered a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or review, as there is no trial court order under consideration. The request to file the petition for clarification 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 clarification. ( 397.1, subd. (c).) This proceeding is DISMISSED. The fee waiver request filed by petitioner is DENIED as moot. 1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. O'LEARY, P. J. Order emailed and mailed by U.S. mail to petitioner.

DocketDescription: Note:; Notes: Petition stricken per order 4-5-22.

DocketDescription: Application for waiver of filing fee filed.; Notes: By Petitioner Ralph Colombo.Denied as moot per order 4-5-22.