Bauman v. Wells Fargo Bank CA4/1
D078697
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 8, 2022Background
- Jordana Bauman sued Wells Fargo (March 2019), alleging wrongful foreclosure; multiple motions and related filings followed.
- Wells Fargo moved (renewed in Aug 2020) for a vexatious-litigant prefiling order; the trial court held hearings and entered a renewed order on January 28, 2021.
- The trial court found Wells Fargo’s evidence showed Bauman, acting pro se, had commenced at least five prior litigations in the preceding seven years that were finally determined against her, and declared her a vexatious litigant under Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b).
- On February 2, 2021 the court issued a prefiling order under § 391.7 prohibiting Bauman from filing new pro se litigation in California without prior judicial approval.
- Bauman appealed; the appellate record omitted Wells Fargo’s moving papers, supporting evidence, and Bauman’s opposition; Bauman argued lack of service and faulted Wells Fargo for record defects.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the record was inadequate for review, applied the presumption of correctness, denied Wells Fargo’s request for judicial notice of unrelated opinions, and affirmed both orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly found Bauman a vexatious litigant | Bauman disputed service and contested the basis for the vexatious finding | Wells Fargo asserted evidence showed at least five prior pro se suits decided against Bauman | Affirmed — court applied presumption of correctness because appellant failed to provide the moving papers/evidence on appeal |
| Whether a § 391.7 prefiling order was properly entered | Bauman challenged the prefiling order as wrongful and procedurally defective | Wells Fargo argued a § 391.7 injunction was authorized after a vexatious-litigant determination | Affirmed — prefiling order sustained under presumption of correctness given inadequate record |
| Adequacy of the appellate record for reviewing the vexatious determination | Bauman argued opposing party (Wells Fargo) should supply missing materials and raised service defects | Wells Fargo argued appellant bears the burden to provide an adequate record for review | Held for Wells Fargo — appellate record is inadequate; appellant failed to show reversible error; orders presumed correct |
| Request for judicial notice of other appellate opinions involving Bauman | (Bauman opposed; argued irrelevant or contested chain of events) | Wells Fargo requested judicial notice of two recent opinions to show additional adverse litigations | Denied — appellate court declined judicial notice as unnecessary to resolution of this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal.4th 1164 (2011) (describes purpose and scope of vexatious litigant statutes and prefiling orders)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (presumption that judgments and orders are correct on appeal)
- Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281 (1987) (appellant’s burden to provide adequate record to show reversible error)
- Ballard v. Uribe, 41 Cal.3d 564 (1986) (same — burden on appellant to demonstrate error with record)
- Luckett v. Panos, 161 Cal.App.4th 77 (2008) (prefiling order is an injunction appealable under § 904.1)
- Holcomb v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., 129 Cal.App.4th 1494 (2005) (standard of review for vexatious litigant determinations: discretionary, upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Osgood v. Landon, 127 Cal.App.4th 425 (2005) (record is inadequate if appellant omits portions that could support affirmance)