John v. Super. Ct., S222726A

Aleyamma John (self-represented) was a tenant sued by Sylvia Chan in an unlawful detainer action; Chan won jury verdicts and attorney fees, and John filed two appeals in propria persona.
Separately, the Court of Appeal (Div. Three) in another case declared John a vexatious litigant and entered a section 391.7 prefiling order (and required security under §391.1 for an unrelated appeal), then dismissed that appeal for failure to post security.
The appellate division in the Chan v. John consolidated appeals stayed and then dismissed John’s appeals under the prefiling order, directing she obtain leave or counsel before proceeding.
John petitioned another division of the Court of Appeal for a writ directing the appellate division to vacate its dismissal; that Court of Appeal ordered the appeals reinstated, relying on Mahdavi.
The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether section 391.7’s prefiling requirements apply to self-represented litigants previously declared vexatious when they are defendants appealing judgments in actions they did not initiate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chan)	Defendant's Argument (John)	Held
Whether §391.7 prefiling requirements apply to a self-represented vexatious litigant who, as a defendant, files an appeal in an action they did not initiate	Appeals by a defendant should be treated as new litigation for purposes of §391.7; an appellant controls the filing and thus acts as a plaintiff on appeal	§391.7 and the statutory definitions focus on plaintiffs who initiate or maintain litigation in propria persona; a defendant appealing did not ‘commence’ the underlying litigation and may not be barred from appealing	§391.7 prefiling requirements do not apply to self-represented vexatious litigants appealing as defendants in actions they did not initiate; appeal may proceed
Whether a Court of Appeal may, in the first instance on appeal, declare an in propria persona defendant a vexatious litigant under §391(b)(3)	Chan argued prefiling restraints should reach appellants to prevent exploitation of statutory ‘loophole’	John and supporting authorities recognized appellate courts may declare a vexatious litigant under §391(b)(3), but that declaration does not automatically impose §391.7 prefiling restrictions on defendant-appellants	The Court confirmed appellate courts may declare a defendant appellant a vexatious litigant, but such a declaration does not impose §391.7 prefiling leave requirements on appeals by defendants who did not initiate the action

Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal.4th 1164 (discusses §391.7 prefiling process and that it targets plaintiffs filing in propria persona)
Mahdavi v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 32 (holds §391.7 does not bar defendant-appellants from appealing cases they did not initiate)
In re R.H., 170 Cal.App.4th 678 (declared vexatious litigant on appeal but dictum treating defendant-appellants as plaintiffs for §391.7 prefiling rejected by Supreme Court)
McColm v. Westwood Park Assn., 62 Cal.App.4th 1211 (involved plaintiff-appellant; not dispositive on defendant-appellant issue; portions implying §391.7 applies to all appellants disapproved)