John v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
63 Cal. 4th 91
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Aleyamma John (self-represented) lost an unlawful detainer action to Sylvia Chan and filed consolidated appeals from the judgment and attorney-fees award.
- Separately, Division Three of the Second District had declared John a vexatious litigant and entered a section 391.7 prefiling order in an earlier action (Riegel), prohibiting in propria persona filings without leave and requiring security for appeals under section 391.1.
- The appellate division stayed and then dismissed John’s consolidated appeals in Chan v. John after concluding she was subject to the prefiling order and had not obtained leave or substituted counsel.
- John sought writ relief in the Second District (Div. Seven), which ordered the appellate division to vacate its dismissal and allow the appeal to proceed; Chan petitioned for review to the California Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether section 391.7’s prefiling requirements apply to a self-represented vexatious-litigant defendant appealing an adverse judgment in litigation the defendant did not initiate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §391.7 prefiling/leave requirement applies to a self-represented vexatious litigant who is a defendant on appeal | Chan: An appellant acts as a "plaintiff" for appeal purposes; §391.7 should bar such appeals without leave to prevent abuse and close a loophole | John: §391.7 targets plaintiffs who commence/maintain litigation; a defendant appealing a case they did not initiate must retain access to appeal without prefiling leave | §391.7’s prefiling requirement does not apply to self-represented vexatious litigants appealing as defendants in actions they did not initiate; appeals may proceed without leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal.4th 1164 (2011) (interpreting §391.7 as a prefiling mechanism aimed at limiting meritless pro per plaintiffs and noting limits when counsel represents the litigant)
- Mahdavi v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 32 (2008) (held §391.7 does not bar an appeal by a defendant who did not initiate the underlying action)
- In re R.H., 170 Cal.App.4th 678 (2009) (declared a defendant-appellant a vexatious litigant but erred in dictum suggesting §391.7’s prefiling requirements bar all appellants)
- McColm v. Westwood Park Assn., 62 Cal.App.4th 1211 (1998) (involved a plaintiff-appellant; not dispositive on whether §391.7 applies to defendants on appeal)