Golin v. Allenby
190 Cal. App. 4th 616
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Golins’ federal suit against state/local officials was dismissed for lack of standing and abstention; they then filed a 110-page state-court action alleging 19 causes of action arising from Nancy Golin conservatorship and related events.
- The state court venue was changed to Santa Clara County; guardian ad litem for Nancy was appointed and then volatile proceedings and recusal issues followed.
- Defendants moved to declare the Golins vexatious litigants under CCP §391, subd. (b)(2)-(3), seek security under §391.3, and obtain a prefiling order under §391.7; motion largely concerned conduct and filings.
- Judge Byrne (ret.) presided over the vexatious-litigant motion; court found Lee (Elsie) as prob. persona, found frivolous tactics, and ordered $500,000 bond; action was dismissed for failure to post bond.
- Golins appealed; this court reversed the dismissal and remanded, holding the district court orders did not establish no reasonable probability of success; Nancy’s claims require guardianship ad litem review; the action was reinstated in part.
- Opinion issued after rehearing denial and modification (Dec. 23, 2010).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Golins were vexatious under §391(b)(3). | Golin and Elsie were improperly deemed vexatious given lack of repeated unmeritorious filings. | Golins’ cumulative tactics and forged proofs of service show frivolous conduct. | Yes for Elsie and Jeffrey; the conduct supports vexatiousness under (b)(3). |
| Whether Elsie can be deemed acting in propria persona despite counsel of record. | Elsie’s representation should shield her from proprio persona status. | Counsel failed to supervise; Jeffrey controlled filings; thusElsie acted as propria persona. | Elsie treated as vexatious under (b)(3); nominal representation not dispositive. |
| Whether there is no reasonable probability Golins will prevail on merits. | District court orders foreclosed merits; prior orders preclude success. | Merits were foreclosed by conservatorship and abstention orders. | Court abused discretion; no basis to conclude no reasonable probability of prevailing. |
| Whether dismissal should be reversed and Nancy’s claims reinstated. | Nancy’s direct claims should survive; guardian ad litem issues unresolved. | Reversal not warranted; action and Nancy’s claims could be dismissed. | Dismissal reversed; action reinstated, with Nancy’s claims to be guardiad ad litem-reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holcomb v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., 129 Cal.App.4th 1494 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (vexatious-litigant scheme aims to curb persistent abuse of the system)
- Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP, 40 Cal.4th 780 (Cal. 2007) (evaluative standard balancing vexatiousness and probability of prevailing)
- Morton v. Wagner, 156 Cal.App.4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (frivolous or vexatious tactics may be shown by overall conduct, not just individual filings)
- Muller v. Tanner, 2 Cal.App.3d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968) (puppet-counsel analysis—nominal counsel does not shield self-represented conduct)
- Shieh v. City of Los Angeles, 17 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (counsel-as-puppet doctrine applies to vexatious-litigant determinations)
- Roston v. Edwards, 127 Cal.App.3d 842 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (review of vexatious-litigant orders for substantial evidence)
- Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP, 40 Cal.4th 780 (Cal. 2007) (see above)