Ogunsalu v. Super. Ct.
D071323M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing recommended a 21‑day suspension of Cornelius Ogunsalu’s preliminary teaching credential and required a hearing to challenge the Accusation.
- Ogunsalu requested a continuance of the administrative hearing; the OAH ALJ denied the continuance for lack of good cause.
- Ogunsalu, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court challenging the denial of the continuance; the superior court refused to allow the filing without leave under Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7.
- Ogunsalu sought permission from the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court; the Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court for reconsideration in light of John v. Superior Court.
- The administrative hearing concluded while the matter was pending; because effective relief is now impossible the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition as moot but addressed the legal question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 391.7 prefiling requirements apply when a vexatious‑litigant respondent in an administrative proceeding files a writ in superior court to challenge an administrative ruling | Ogunsalu: John controls; as a respondent/defendant in the administrative matter he is appealing an adverse ruling, so § 391.7 should not apply | Commission: Ogunsalu was the plaintiff in the superior‑court writ (he commenced new litigation), so § 391.7 applies and courts properly required leave to file | Court: § 391.7 applies. The statute’s definitions make "litigation" limited to court proceedings, so Ogunsalu was the plaintiff in the superior‑court action and subject to prefiling requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- John v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 91 (Cal. 2016) (held § 391.7 prefiling rule does not apply to an in‑propria‑persona defendant’s appeal in a court action)
- Mahdavi v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (interpreted § 391.7 as not applying to defendant’s appeal of an adverse ruling)
- Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda, 216 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (mootness: case is moot if subsequent events make effective relief impracticable or impossible)
- People v. Gregerson, 202 Cal.App.4th 306 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (recognizes exception allowing decision of moot issues of continuing public importance that evade review)