Opinion
C093837
12-22-2021
GEORGE BOUTROS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JARED PLASTER, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 20CV00784
RENNER, J.
Plaintiff George Boutros appeals from a vexatious litigant prefiling order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7.) Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the order.
No respondent's brief was filed in this matter.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
I. DISCUSSION
Section 391.7, subdivision (a), authorizes a court to enter, on its own motion or the motion of any party, "a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation" in propria persona without first obtaining permission from the presiding judge. Section 391, subdivision (b) defines a vexatious litigant as a person who meets any of four specified criteria.
"' "A court exercises its discretion in determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant. [Citation.] We uphold the court's ruling if it is supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] On appeal, we presume the order declaring a litigant vexatious is correct and imply findings necessary to support the judgment." [Citation.] Questions of statutory interpretation, however, we review de novo.'" (In re Marriage of Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1346.) Additionally, "it is appellant's burden to affirmatively show error. [Citation.] To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error." (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) The rules of appellate procedure apply to Boutros even though he is representing himself on appeal. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 523.)
The trial court's order to show cause why Boutros should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subject to a prefiling order noted each of the four possible grounds under section 391, but it focused on the first: "In the immediately preceding seven-year period [the person] has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing." (§ 391, subd. (b)(1).)
The court took judicial notice of five actions in propria persona that had been finally determined adversely to Boutros in the seven years before the trial court issued its order to show cause on its own motion on December 30, 2020: Boutros v. Lossotta, Butte County Case No. 159172 (dismissed February 11, 2014); Boutros v. Wimberely, Butte County Case No. 20CV01636 (dismissed August 31, 2020); Boutros v. Barakat, Butte County Case No. 20CV01716 (dismissed September 21, 2020); Boutros v. Farley,
Butte County Case No. 20CV01717 (dismissed November 20, 2020); and Boutros v. Adventist Health, Third District Court of Appeal Case No. C074098 (dismissed April 8, 2014). This was substantial evidence to support the court's finding that Boutros is a vexatious litigant.
Boutros has failed to demonstrate any error. He argues the first and the last cases fell outside of the 7-year period. As this court has previously explained, "section 391, subdivision (b)(1) looks to whether a litigation was 'commenced, prosecuted or maintained in propria persona' within the relevant period. . . . Thus, the fact that a litigation was 'commenced' outside the seven-year window does not necessarily exclude it from consideration if it was subsequently 'prosecuted' or 'maintained' by the plaintiff in propria persona within the window." (Stolz v. Bank of America (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 217, 225.) Boutros cites nothing in the record to demonstrate that these cases were not, as the trial court indicated, prosecuted or maintained in the relevant time period. Nor does he offer any citations to authority or the record to support a claim that any of the other cases we listed did not meet the statutory criteria. His arguments regarding other cases the court took judicial notice of in its order to show cause are irrelevant to the question of whether substantial evidence supported a finding that he is a vexatious litigant under section 391, subdivision (b)(1)." '[O]ne good reason is sufficient to sustain the order from which the appeal was taken.'" (People v. JTH Tax, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1237.) Boutros has failed to demonstrate the court erred in finding him to be a vexatious litigant and issuing its March 24, 2021 prefiling order.
II. DISPOSITION
The March 24, 2021 order is affirmed.
We concur: MAURO, Acting P.J., DUARTE, J.