Smith v. Monk CA2/4
B300975
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2021Background
- Evelyn Smith owns a Los Angeles duplex; in 2017 she and her daughter Pamela Monk settled overlapping litigation under a §664.6 oral stipulation: Monk quitclaimed any interest in the property to Smith and the cases were dismissed with prejudice.
- Monk lived in the lower unit and allegedly stopped paying rent; she previously recorded a 2016 quitclaim purporting to claim interest in the property.
- Smith obtained an elder abuse restraining order (EARO) in late 2018 (modified to require Monk to move out); that order was vacated for lack of notice and, after a two-day evidentiary hearing, a new EARO was entered on Feb. 4, 2019 finding financial elder abuse and ordering Monk to move out.
- Monk filed multiple motions to vacate the EARO and otherwise challenge proceedings; the trial court denied a motion to set aside the EARO with prejudice, awarded Smith attorneys’ fees for obtaining the EARO (June 2019), declared Monk a vexatious litigant and entered a prefiling order (July 2019), and later awarded additional attorney fees as sanctions (Jan. 2020).
- Monk appealed, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (res judicata), judicial bias, and invalidity of the vexatious-litigant and sanctions orders; the Court of Appeal found Monk’s appeal of the Feb. 2019 EARO untimely but affirmed the other orders.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Monk's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vexatious-litigant prefiling order barred Monk from appealing | Prefiling order should block Monk’s appeals unless she obtained permission | John v. Superior Court exception applies because Monk was a defendant appealing a case she did not initiate | Appeal not barred; John exception applies (prefiling requirement did not apply) |
| Timeliness of appeal of the Feb. 2019 EARO and later orders | Smith urged 60-day deadlines where proper service occurred | Monk argued appeals were timely or service shortened the deadline | Appeal of Feb. 2019 EARO was untimely (Monk’s notice filed after 180-day limit); appeals of June 2019, July 2019, and Jan. 2020 orders were timely and reviewable |
| Whether EARO was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because claims were barred by res judicata | Smith maintained EARO was valid and based on elder-abuse evidence | Monk argued prior §664.6 settlement dismissed those claims so court lacked jurisdiction and the EARO was void | Res judicata is a defensive, non-jurisdictional defense; EARO not void for lack of jurisdiction; challenge rejected |
| Judicial bias of trial judge (due process claim) | Smith did not concede bias; proceedings were proper | Monk alleged demeaning tone, unfair treatment, and off‑the‑record exhortation to file vexatious motion | Claim forfeited for lack of authority; on merits, court found Monk failed to meet the high standard for unconstitutional judicial bias |
| Validity of vexatious‑litigant declaration and sanctions | Smith sought vexatious‑litigant finding and fees as sanctions | Monk argued she does not meet vexatious‑litigant tests and orders were improper | Monk forfeited detailed challenge by failing to present record/authority; appellate court affirmed the orders |
Key Cases Cited
- John v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 91 (Cal. 2016) (prefiling requirements do not apply when a self-represented litigant who was a defendant in the original action appeals an adverse ruling)
- Ogunsalu v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.5th 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (prefiling rule applied where vexatious litigant initiated new superior‑court writ proceedings)
- Van Beurden Ins. Servs. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, 15 Cal.4th 51 (Cal. 1997) (appeal deadlines are jurisdictional)
- In re Marriage of Lin, 225 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (strict construction of service rules that shorten appellate deadlines)
- Alan v. America Honda Motor Co., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 2007) (courts should avoid forcing parties to guess about jurisdictional appeal triggers)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (issues unsupported by reasoned argument and authority are forfeited)
- Schmidt v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.5th 570 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (judicial‑bias/due‑process standard is exceptionally stringent)
- Howard Greer Custom Originals v. Superior Court, 87 Cal.App.2d 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (res judicata is a defensive plea and does not affect court jurisdiction)
- David v. Hermann, 129 Cal.App.4th 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (res judicata is not a jurisdictional defense)