Kinney v. Clark, B265267M

Clark obtained a December 15, 2008 attorney fees award of $9,349 against Kinney under the real estate purchase agreement; Kinney appealed and the award was affirmed.
Kinney and Kempton’s related actions led to Kinney being declared a vexatious litigant and a prefiling order prohibiting new filings without leave of a judge.
Clark declared bankruptcy in July 2010; the bankruptcy court later discharged Clark but allowed state court proceedings to determine further recovery of fees.
In 2013–2015 Clark sought enforcement of the 2008 fee award and additional attorney fees; Kinney opposed and pursued exemptions, leading to appellate proceedings (B253093) that were dismissed for lack of standing.
On May 5, 2015 the trial court awarded Clark an additional $22,115 for work defending the related appeal; Kinney appealed, leading to the present appeal.
This court granted sanctions against Kinney for filing a frivolous appeal and imposed an expanded prefiling order requiring Kinney to obtain leave to file new litigation against Clark or her attorneys.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Post-bankruptcy enforceability of fees	Kinney argues Clark’s post-bankruptcy fees are invalid and would create windfall.	Clark contends post-bankruptcy enforcement under the Agreement is proper state-law enforcement and not stayed by discharge.	Post-bankruptcy enforcement affirmed; not stayed or barred.
Standing to challenge 2008 award after discharge	Kinney lacks standing to challenge the 2008 award given bankruptcy discharge.	Clark argues Kinney cannot defeat enforcement; he lacks rights as a creditor of the estate.	Kinney lacked standing; challenge rejected.
Effect of appellate stays on subsequent fee orders	Kinney argues pending appeals stay enforcement of later fee awards.	Clark argues stays do not automatically bar later fee awards or enforcement.	Appeals did not stay new enforcement orders; subsequent fees may be awarded.
Expanded prefiling order authority	Kinney contends section 391.7 limits prefiling orders to self-represented litigants.	Clark argues inherent powers allow expansion to curb abuse when counsel acts as a puppet for a vexatious litigant.	Expanded prefiling order authorized; Kinney barred from filing without leave.
Sanctions for frivolous appeal	Kinney maintains merit to arguments; sanctions unwarranted.	Clark seeks sanctions for persistent meritless appeals.	Sanctions imposed; $10,000 payable to Clark.

In re Shieh, 17 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (puppet-attorney prefiling orders extend to vexatious litigants through counsel)
Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 2011) (addressed limits of section 391.7 and attorney conduct)
John v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 91 (Cal. 2020) (prefiling requirements do not apply to certain self-represented vexatious litigants)
In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 1996) (definition of executory contract for bankruptcy purposes)
In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637 (Cal. 1982) (frivolous appeal standard)
Mojtahedi v. Vargas, 228 Cal.App.4th 974 (Cal. App. 2014) (regarding standing related to attorney fees liens)
Neary v. Regents of University of California, 3 Cal.4th 273 (Cal. 1992) (inherent powers of courts to control proceedings)