Singh v. Lipworth CA3
227 Cal. App. 4th 813
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Raj Singh (who has used multiple aliases including Kaus/Archana Singh and Suman Mehta) lost a prior case and judgment in favor of U‑Save, which was assigned to Stephen Lipworth; courts previously found Singh used aliases and engaged in sham transfers to hide property.
- After appellate reversal directing further proceedings, Karen Singh (wife) transferred the subject property to "Suman Mehta, Trustee," and the trial court later found Mehta was another Singh alias, set aside transfers as fraudulent, and ordered sale to satisfy the judgment. Those orders became final.
- In a new suit (Singh, Karen, and Mehta) plaintiffs alleged Lipworth obtained the prior orders by fraudulent representations; plaintiffs recorded lis pendens without proper service and filed multiple defective amended complaints and procedurally deficient motions.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel was suspended; Singh repeatedly filed frivolous motions in propria persona; the trial court found Singh a vexatious litigant, ordered him to post $15,000 security and dismissed his claims for failure to do so. The court granted Lipworth’s anti‑SLAPP motion as to Karen and awarded fees.
- Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal found the appeal frivolous, affirmed the judgment, and imposed monetary sanctions jointly and severally against plaintiffs and their appellate counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may relitigate ownership/alias findings from prior final judgment | Singh alleged he is not the aliases (Mehta/Archana/Kaus) and the prior rulings were procured by fraud | Lipworth argued the prior adjudications on aliases and property transfers are final and binding; new claims improperly collateral attack the final judgment | Court: prior rulings were final; plaintiffs’ claims are collateral attacks based on intrinsic fraud and therefore untenable |
| Whether Singh is a vexatious litigant and whether dismissal/ security under §391 et seq. was proper | Singh contended motions/amendments were curable and the case should proceed on the merits | Lipworth showed repeated frivolous filings, procedural abuses, and lack of reasonable probability of prevailing | Court: substantial evidence Singh is a vexatious litigant; ordering security and dismissal for failure to post was appropriate |
| Whether Karen’s claims survive Lipworth’s special motion to strike (anti‑SLAPP) | Karen (through complaint) accused Lipworth of fraudulent litigation conduct | Lipworth argued the claims arose from statements/acts in judicial proceedings (protected) and Karen failed to show probability of prevailing | Court: anti‑SLAPP applies to judicial‑proceeding communications; Karen failed to meet burden; strike granted |
| Whether appellate sanctions are appropriate for frivolous appeal | Plaintiffs argued the appeal raised meritorious issues and counsel filed in good faith | Lipworth sought sanctions under Cal. Rule of Court 8.276 and §907, showing the appeal was objectively without merit and brought to delay/harass | Court: appeal indisputably frivolous; imposed monetary sanctions against appellants and their appellate counsel, payable to respondent and the court clerk |
Key Cases Cited
- Flaherty v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 637 (Cal. 1982) (standard for imposing sanctions on frivolous appeals)
- Bach v. County of Butte, 215 Cal.App.3d 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (frivolous appeal definitions and standards)
- Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky, LLP, 215 Cal.App.4th 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (use of sanctions sparingly; subjective/objective tests for frivolous appeal)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1990) (collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of decided issues)
- Golin v. Allenby, 190 Cal.App.4th 616 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for vexatious litigant determinations)
- Long v. Century Indemnity Co., 163 Cal.App.4th 1460 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (denial of leave to amend when amendment would be futile)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (Cal. 2007) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (anti‑SLAPP procedural framework)
- Mendoza v. Wichmann, 194 Cal.App.4th 1430 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (de novo review of anti‑SLAPP rulings)
- Pierotti v. Torian, 81 Cal.App.4th 17 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (awarding additional sanctions to compensate court processing costs)
- In re Marriage of Schnabel, 30 Cal.App.4th 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (sanctions may be imposed on counsel for pursuing totally meritless appeals)