In re Kinney
201 Cal. App. 4th 951
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Kinney, a lawyer declared a vexatious litigant in 2008, uses Kimberly Kempton as a stand-in to file six lawsuits over the Femwood property in Los Angeles.
- Kinney’s litigation history includes multiple sanctions and appellate losses in both state and federal courts, leading to the 2008 vexatious-litigant finding and a prefiling order.
- The Femwood property cases involve fence-related disputes, easements, and nuisance claims against neighbors, the City of Los Angeles, and the former owner, all pursued by Kempton as plaintiff and Kinney as attorney.
- Trial and appellate courts repeatedly ruled against the K’s, with significant attorney-fee sanctions and denials on six major actions.
- Kinney admits he anticipated ongoing litigation upon purchasing the property, effectively acknowledging a strategy of litigation rather than resolution with neighbors.
- The court concludes Kinney is using Kempton as a puppet to continue abusive litigation, and imposes a statewide prefiling order banning new suits without court leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kinney is a vexatious litigant under CCP 391 | Kinney’s pattern of repeated, meritless filings and sanctions demonstrates vexatious conduct. | Kinney is merely acting through Kempton; the pattern still harms courts and others, warranting designation. | Yes; Kinney qualifies as a vexatious litigant. |
| Whether Kempton’s participation as a puppet affects the vexatious-litigant ruling | Kempton acts as Kinney’s surrogate and should not shield him from the statute. | Kempton is an independent plaintiff with no control over Kinney’s conduct. | Kempton’s role as Kinney’s conduit supports the vexatious-litigant finding. |
| Whether a prefiling order prohibiting new litigation should be issued for Kinney | Kinney’s continued abuse of the system justifies extraordinary court intervention. | A prefiling order is an excessive remedy; Kinney should be limited by existing sanctions. | Yes; a prefiling order prohibiting new litigation without leave is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 2011) (vexatious-litigant framework extends to attorneys acting as puppets)
- Morton v. Wagner, 156 Cal.App.4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (definition and purpose of vexatious-litigant statutes)
- Fink v. Shemtov, 180 Cal.App.4th 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (litigation abuse and prefiling considerations)
- In re Shieh, 17 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (puppet or conduit attorney can justify extended prefiling relief)
- McColm v. Westwood Park Assn., 62 Cal.App.4th 1211 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (litigation as new action and impact on court resources)
- Golin v. Allenby, 190 Cal.App.4th 616 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (extension of vexatious-litigant concepts to broader contexts)
- Shieh, 137 Cal.App.4th 387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (puppet/agency doctrine and limits on unmeritorious litigation)
- Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (pattern of frivolous filings and sanctions referenced in vexatious-litigant analysis)
- In re Natural Gas Antitrust Cases, 137 Cal.App.4th 387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (vexatious-litigant considerations and attorney involvement)