This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 09/23/2022 at 10:01:14 (UTC).

Colombo v. The Superior Court of Orange County

Case Summary

On 08/12/2021 Colombo filed an Other lawsuit against The 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 Hernandez, Maria. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***0578

  • Filing Date:

    08/12/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Hernandez, Maria

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Ralph Colombo

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Respondent

The Superior Court of Orange County

Attn: Hon Maria Hernandez C-1 700 Civic Center 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

11400 W Olympic Blvd, Ste 425

Los Angeles, CA 90064-1561

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/29/2022
  • 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.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/14/2022
  • 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.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/25/2022
  • DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Verified Petition for Equitable Relief - must be submitted under a new case.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/06/2021
  • DocketDescription: Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.; Notes: Filed 12-1-21.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2021
  • DocketDescription: Record transmitted to Supreme Court electronically.; Notes: R. Toy requested record. All documents available electronically.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2021
  • DocketDescription: Service copy of petition for review received.; Notes: By Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DispositionDescription: Order dismissing petition; Disposition Type: Final

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketDescription: Record shipped to records center; Notes: All documents scanned.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • 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.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketDescription: Amended petition filed.; Notes: By pet Ralph Colombo.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • 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.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/20/2021
  • 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.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/18/2021
  • DocketDescription: Amended petition filed.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2021
  • DocketDescription: Vexatious litigant application filed (initial case event); Notes: By Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2021
  • 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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • 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.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • 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.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/12/2021
  • DocketDescription: Application for waiver of filing fee filed.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/12/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: By pet Ralph Colombo. STRICKEN PER ORDER OF 09/03/21.

    [+] 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