34 Cal. App. 5th 1072
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Mary McFadden repeatedly sued the City of Los Angeles and related parties over the 2005 condemnation and demolition of her house; prior related cases were resolved against her (res judicata) or dismissed.
- In 2014 the trial court declared McFadden a vexatious litigant, imposed a prefiling order, and required a $5,000 security bond; this court affirmed those rulings but reversed the dismissal for lack of a fixed bond deadline (McFadden III).
- McFadden filed a new complaint in 2012 challenging the County's pending tax auction and reasserting claims about the City’s demolition of her property.
- The trial court, on its own motion, moved to strike the complaint under CCP § 436 and for judgment on the pleadings under CCP § 438, concluding the claims were barred by res judicata and otherwise frivolous.
- The trial court dismissed the action; McFadden appealed without obtaining the leave required by the vexatious-litigant prefiling order and later retained and then lost counsel, triggering review under CCP § 391.3(b).
- The appellate court reviewed whether the appeals had merit or were filed for harassment/delay and concluded they lacked merit and were harassing, and dismissed the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McFadden's claims about the 2005 demolition are timely or barred | McFadden: City failed to provide required administrative proceeding; claims merit reconsideration | City: Claims were or could have been litigated earlier and are barred by res judicata | Barred by res judicata; claims untimely and meritless |
| Whether McFadden can avoid vexatious-litigant restrictions by claiming she is a defendant | McFadden: She is the defendant in the action and thus not subject to the prefiling order | Respondents: McFadden filed the complaint and is the plaintiff; prefiling order applies | Rejected; she was the plaintiff and prefiling order remains effective |
| Whether appeals were filed without required leave and must be tested for harassment under CCP § 391.3(b) | McFadden: Appeals have merit and are not for harassment | Respondents: Appeals are meritless and intended to harass or delay | Appeals found meritless and harassing; dismissed under the vexatious-litigant framework |
| Whether courts erred in dismissing after counsel withdrew under CCP § 391.3(b) and related authority | McFadden: Dismissal/limitations improper or procedurally unfair | Respondents: Statutory scheme permits dismissal when litigation lacks merit after withdrawal of counsel | Dismissal appropriate here; statutory amendments (post-Shalant) permit dismissal in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Tensor Group v. City of Glendale, 14 Cal.App.4th 154 (1993) (res judicata bars matters that were or could have been litigated)
- Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal.4th 1164 (2011) (limits on courts' power to dismiss vexatious-litigant actions before statutory amendment; explains need to follow statutory scheme)