Flores v. Georgeson
191 Cal. App. 4th 881
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Flores was declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to a prefiling order under CCP § 391.7(a).
- In October 2008 Flores and two others filed suit in Fresno County; counsel of record was Tomas Nunez.
- Defendants moved to strike under anti-SLAPP and noted the clerk filed without requiring prefiling leave; hearing occurred.
- Trial court concluded that prefiling approval did not apply to represented litigants and later dismissed Flores for lack of prefiling approval.
- Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court held representation does not negate prefiling limitations but limits apply to pro se filing; discusses status of vexatious litigant.
- Court reversed the dismissal, held prefiling order does not require counsel-led filing permission, and awarded appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a prefiling order apply to vexatious litigants represented by counsel? | Flores contends representation by counsel excludes prefiling requirement. | Georgeson argues Camerado limits and preserves prefiling controls regardless of counsel. | Prefiling order does not require permission when represented by counsel. |
| What is the effect of Camerado on representation and prefiling? | Camerado supports continued effect of prefiling for vexatious litigants even with counsel. | Defendants argue Camerado supports pro se focus but not complete immunity from prefiling. | Camerado does not force prefiling for represented litigants; representation allows filing without prefiling leave. |
| Is Forrest v. Department of Corporations controlling on the necessity of prefiling permission when counsel is present? | Forrest suggests prefiling may be required even if represented, depending on context. | Forrest is distinguishable; it concerns unrepresented status and continued litigation, not just representation. | Forrest is distinguishable; it does not require counsel to obtain prefiling leave to proceed. |
| Did the trial court have authority to dismiss for lack of prefiling leave under § 391.7(a)? | No prefiling leave required due to counsel representation; dismissal was erroneous. | The court properly dismissed for failure to obtain prefiling leave. | Dismissal was reversed; the prefiling rule does not apply to represented litigants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.4th 838 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (prefiling order; representation does not bar all prefiling control; pro se focus)
- Forrest v. Department of Corporations, 150 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (prefiling requirement applied differently when vexatious litigant is unrepresented)
- In re Shieh, 17 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (complex context; limits of prefiling order; distinction between ordinary application)