Colombo v. The Superior Court of Orange County

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Fee waiver application, request to file new litigation by vexatious litigant. Case has been closed and complete since 12/6/21 per Supreme Court.

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Fee waiver application, request to file new litigation by vexatious litigant, exhibits in support of motion for reconsideration of the order filed 9/3/21. Case has been closed and complete since 12/6/21 per Supreme Court.

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Verified Petition for Equitable Relief - must be submitted under a new case.

DocketDescription: Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.; Notes: Filed 12-1-21.

DocketDescription: Record transmitted to Supreme Court electronically.; Notes: R. Toy requested record. All documents available electronically.

DocketDescription: Service copy of petition for review received.; Notes: By Petitioner

DispositionDescription: Order dismissing petition; Disposition Type: Final

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

DocketDescription: Case complete.

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 1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 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'"].) Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate and a request for permission to file the petition pursuant to section 391.7. The specific order challenged is a February 1, 2021 respondent court order denying petitioner's request for permission to file new litigation. Petitioner seeks permission from this court to file a writ petition challenging respondent court's denial of permission to file a "new" lawsuit. The word "new" is not quite accurate. The proposed complaint is based on alleged legal malpractice by real parties in interest when they briefly represented petitioner in 2010 and 2011. Since 2012, petitioner has filed essentially the same lawsuit several times against real parties in interest. His applications for permission to file these lawsuits received different treatment from different trial judges who ruled on the requests. In 2019, this court held that "res judicata barred [petitioner's] second request" for permission to file the lawsuit. (Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 407, 420.) In reaching this conclusion, this court observed: "Allowing a vexatious litigant to repeatedly seek leave to file the same claims against the same parties, in the hope that a different judge will review the request, or the same judge will not recall a prior request, would undermine the policy underpinnings of both the vexatious litigant statutory scheme and the res judicata doctrine. Once the vexatious litigant's request to file has been denied . . . he or she cannot simply try over and over again." (Id. at pp. 419-420.)Petitioner persists in his efforts to sue (without an attorney representing him) real parties based on the same set of operative facts. Petitioner continues to point to inconsistencies by respondent court in the treatment of his repeated efforts to pursue this lawsuit as somehow supporting the merit of his lawsuit. This rationale is unpersuasive. Res judicata prevents respondent court from granting permission to petitioner to sue (on his own behalf and without representation) real parties based on their conduct as attorneys for petitioner in 2010-2011. It does not matter that petitioner seeks to pursue additional legal theories of liability, which were not included in some of his prior proposed pleadings. Res judicata bars him from pursuing all forms of relief that could have been raised in the prior action based on the same facts leading to the alleged harm suffered by the plaintiff. (Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 576-577.) Neither the request for permission nor the petition itself demonstrates any way for the proposed "new" action contemplated here to escape the res judicata bar. 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.

DocketDescription: Amended petition filed.; Notes: By pet Ralph Colombo.

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Two volumes of amended exhibits were rejected. The pagination is not correct. POS needs to be counted in the pagination and the pagination for the index needs to be correct.

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Exhibits in support of petition have been returned. Must bookmark sub-exhibits. For example sub- exhibit A through sub- exhibit Q in the first volume of exhibits need a title/description of what those sub-exhibits are. Volume 2 also needs the sub-exhibits bookmarked. Must also bookmark exhibits. There are exhibits that just say "Exhibit A," "Exhibit 1, or "Exhibit 2" These exhibits also need a title or description of what those exhibits are.

DocketDescription: Amended petition filed.

DocketDescription: Vexatious litigant application filed (initial case event); Notes: By Petitioner

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Petitioner's notice to the court regarding attorney for RPI has been returned, it is missing proof of service to all parties

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Petitioner's petition was rejected. The request for vexatious filing and petition need to be filed separate. Real Party attorney information needs to be listed.

DocketDescription: Order waiving filing fee.; Notes: Pursuant to the filing of a Request to Waive Court Fees and Costs, and with good cause appearing therefor, IT IS ORDERED that appellate court fees and costs for the above-entitled action are waived pursuant to rule 8.26. This fee waiver applies only to the appellate fees and costs identified in California Rules of Court, rule 8.26(e) [appellate court filing fee; court fee for telephonic oral argument]. Any request for a waiver of superior court costs and fees must be addressed to the superior court.

DocketDescription: Application for waiver of filing fee filed.

DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: By pet Ralph Colombo. STRICKEN PER ORDER OF 09/03/21.