Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Assn., E065766

Background

Plaintiff Aristea Hupp (in propria persona) sued Solera Oak Valley Greens Association after a federal suit by Aristea and her son Paul was dismissed; Paul had been declared a vexatious litigant by a 2014 Riverside County order.
Aristea filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) in state court that named only Aristea in the caption but contained numerous allegations and claims benefiting or referring to Paul.
Solera specially appeared, served notice under Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(c) that Paul was a declared vexatious litigant, and after 10 days filed an ex parte application to dismiss the FAC.
The trial court granted the ex parte application and entered judgment of dismissal; Aristea moved for reconsideration but judgment already had been entered.
On appeal Aristea argued the ex parte dismissal deprived her of due process (insufficient notice/opportunity to be heard) and that Solera waived the vexatious-litigant defense; she also argued she could bring claims on Paul’s behalf under the Davis‑Stirling Act.
The Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal as to all claims brought by or benefitting Paul (because he was a declared vexatious litigant) and reversed dismissal as to claims solely personal to Aristea, directing the trial court to strike allegations and claims relating to Paul.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did ex parte dismissal under § 391.7(c) violate Aristea’s due process right to notice and a meaningful hearing?	Aristea: she did not receive adequate notice of the ex parte application or copies of papers and was entitled to 16 court days under § 1005(b).	Solera: § 391.7(c) authorizes automatic dismissal on short notice when a declared vexatious litigant’s filings are involved; shorter procedure is permissible.	Court: § 391.7(c) procedures can short-circuit § 1005(b) for claims presented by a declared vexatious litigant; dismissal was proper as to Paul’s claims but not for Aristea’s personal claims because she was not declared vexatious.
Did Solera waive/forfeit the vexatious‑litigant defense by not raising it in its first responsive pleadings?	Aristea: Solera failed to raise the issue earlier, so it waived it.	Solera: no waiver; § 391.7(c) allows any party to file notice when the clerk mistakenly files litigation by a vexatious litigant and no timing requirement exists.	Court: no waiver; special appearance and later § 391.7(c) notice were proper; no forfeiture.
Can Paul’s vexatious status be imputed to dismiss claims filed nominally by Aristea?	Aristea: she can assert claims on Paul’s behalf (Davis‑Stirling) and her complaint should not be dismissed in full.	Solera: FAC effectively presents Paul’s claims and is an attempt to evade the prefiling order, so § 391.7(c) dismissal of the FAC is proper.	Court: claims by or benefitting Paul must be dismissed under § 391.7(c); but claims solely personal to non‑vexatious Aristea cannot be dismissed under § 391.7(c) absent a separate vexatious finding or other proper procedure.
May the court treat a non‑vexatious plaintiff as a puppet and dismiss her claims ex parte under § 391.7(c)?	Aristea: N/A (she argued due process and standing for Paul’s claims).	Solera: urged broad application to prevent circumvention.	Court: rejected broad imputation. Court recognized inherent power to dismiss sham suits but held that § 391.7(c) dismissal is limited to litigation "presented by" a declared vexatious litigant; non‑vexatious plaintiff’s personal claims require normal notice/hearing or a separate vexatious‑litigant determination.

Key Cases Cited

Forrest v. Department of Corporations, 150 Cal.App.4th 183 (discusses standard of review and § 391.7(c) mechanics)
Bravo v. Ismaj, 99 Cal.App.4th 211 (upholds constitutionality and purpose of vexatious‑litigant statutes)
In re Bittaker, 55 Cal.App.4th 1004 (background on intent of vexatious‑litigant statutes)
In re Shieh, 17 Cal.App.4th 1154 (prefiling order extended where plaintiff drafted frivolous pleadings even when represented)
Say & Say, Inc. v. Ebershoff, 20 Cal.App.4th 1759 (piercing corporate fiction to apply vexatious‑litigant law)
In re Kinney, 201 Cal.App.4th 951 (vexatious litigant using proxy plaintiff; court limited filings by both)
Flores v. Georgeson, 191 Cal.App.4th 881 (distinguishes inherent power to dismiss sham suits from ministerial § 391.7(c) dismissal)
Andre v. General Dynamics, 43 Cal.App.3d 839 (notice required when dismissal rests in court's discretion)
Harris v. Board of Education, 152 Cal.App.2d 677 (same: plaintiff entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard)