Ogunsalu v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
12 Cal. App. 5th 107
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing sought suspension of Ogunsalu’s preliminary teaching credentials and issued an Accusation; Ogunsalu requested an administrative hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
- An OAH administrative law judge denied Ogunsalu’s request for a continuance of the administrative hearing for lack of good cause.
- Ogunsalu, a previously declared vexatious litigant, filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in superior court to challenge the denial of the continuance; the superior court refused to allow the filing without compliance with vexatious-litigant prefiling requirements under Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7.
- Ogunsalu sought permission from the Court of Appeal and then the California Supreme Court; the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of John v. Superior Court.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the writ petition is moot because the administrative hearing had already occurred, but addressed the legal question whether § 391.7’s prefiling requirements apply to a self-represented vexatious litigant who seeks to file a writ in superior court challenging an administrative ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 391.7 prefiling requirements apply when a self-represented vexatious litigant (previously declared) files a writ in superior court to challenge an adverse ruling in an administrative proceeding | Ogunsalu: John v. Superior Court means the prefiling rule should not apply because he is effectively a defendant appealing an adverse ruling in proceedings brought against him | Commission: Ogunsalu is the plaintiff in the superior-court writ (he commenced new litigation) so § 391.7 applies and the court properly required leave to file | The Court of Appeal: § 391(a)’s definitions make ‘‘litigation’’ limited to court proceedings; Ogunsalu was the plaintiff when he filed the superior-court writ, so § 391.7 prefiling requirements properly applied; petition dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- John v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 91 (Cal. 2016) (interprets scope of § 391.7 and limits on prefiling restrictions for in propria persona defendants on appeal)
- Mahdavi v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (held § 391.7 did not apply to a defendant appealing an adverse ruling)
- Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda, 216 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (mootness principles where subsequent events make effective relief impossible)
- Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (describes § 391.7 prefiling requirement as a courthouse gatekeeping/licensing mechanism)