Opinion
F050257
5-1-2007
In re the Marriage of PAUL and RAMONA JARAMILLO. RAMONA JARAMILLO, Respondent, v. PAUL JARAMILLO, Appellant.
Paul Jaramillo, in pro. per., for Appellant. Tenenbaum, Lampe & Fromson and Paul D. Fromson for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
This appeal, which arises in the context of a marital dissolution proceeding, challenges an order declaring the husband to be a vexatious litigant and requiring that he obtain the courts permission before filing new litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7.)
All further statutory citations will refer to the Code of Civil Procedure.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On December 16, 2005, Ramona Jaramillo filed a motion in her dissolution action seeking to have her former husband, Paul Jaramillo, declared a vexatious litigant. In a declaration accompanying her motion, Ramonas attorney, Paul D. Fromson, asserted that Jaramillo, acting in propria persona, had filed a long and varied list of pleadings during the many years the action had been pending, all of which had been denied or dismissed as nonmeritorious.
We will sometimes refer to the Jaramillos by their first names for the sake of clarity and brevity, and mean no disrespect.
The most recent of these pleadings concerned conditions imposed by the court on Jaramillos supervised visitation with his daughter. One such condition required him to undergo a mental health evaluation. (Evid. Code, § 730.) He thereafter filed a series of motions asking the court to order his wifes attorney to refer him to someone who could perform the evaluation, and/or asking the court to pay some or all of the costs. Jaramillo also apparently filed other motions challenging the timing, location, and circumstances of the visitation. Beyond that, it is not possible to determine from the record the factual and legal bases for these motions, their contents, or their eventual dispositions (other than that they were rejected by the court on substantive or procedural grounds). It also appears that Jaramillo refiled some of the same motions several times after they had been dismissed or denied.
The daughter evidently was living with her mother in San Jose, in Santa Clara County. Paul was living in Porterville, in southern Tulare County. The proceedings were being held in the Superior Court of Merced County.
A hearing on Ramonas vexatious litigant motion, originally set for December 27, 2005, was continued until January 30, 2006. Jaramillo appeared at the hearing and argued his errors were a product of his unfamiliarity with the law and the courts procedures, and of his desire to see his daughter, not of any improper motive. The court observed that pro per litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys, and that facilitators were available to help Jaramillo file his pleadings properly.
The court granted Ramonas motion. The prefiling order was entered on February 9, 2006.
DISCUSSION
Jaramillo argues much the same thing on appeal as he did at the hearing. That is, he maintains his various motions, while he may not have presented them correctly, raise important issues worthy of the courts attention. The problem with this argument is that, unless and until Jaramillo does present his motions correctly, it is impossible to determine whether they have merit or not. And, in the meantime, he is diverting the courts time and resources away from other litigants who also deserve their day in court; he is imposing an unjustified burden on his ex-wife and daughter; and he is, frankly, wasting his own time and money as well.
"The vexatious litigant statute (§§ 391-391.7) was enacted in 1963 to curb misuse of the court system by those acting in propria persona who repeatedly relitigate the same issues. Their abuse of the system not only wastes court time and resources but also prejudices other parties waiting their turn before the courts. [Citations.]
"The statute defines a `vexatious litigant, provides a procedure in pending litigation for declaring a person a vexatious litigant, and establishes procedural strictures that can be imposed on vexatious litigants. A vexatious litigant may be required to furnish security before proceeding with the pending litigation; if that security is not furnished, the litigation must be dismissed. (§§ 391.3, 391.4.) In addition, the court may, on its own motion or on motion of a party, issue a prefiling order that prohibits the vexatious litigant from filing any `new litigation without first obtaining permission of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. (§ 391.7.)" (In re Bittaker (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008; McColm v. Westwood Park Assn. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1215-1216.)
Section 391.7 provides in part:
"(a) In addition to any other relief provided in this title, the court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.
"(b) The presiding judge shall permit the filing of that litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. The presiding judge may condition the filing of the litigation upon the furnishing of security for the benefit of the defendants as provided in Section 391.3.
"(c) The clerk may not file any litigation presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the vexatious litigant first obtains an order from the presiding judge permitting the filing....
"(d) For purposes of this section, `litigation includes any petition, application, or motion other than a discovery motion, in a proceeding under the Family Code or Probate Code, for any order."
Section 391.7 operates solely to prevent the initiation of meritless lawsuits and their attendant expenditure of time and resources; it does not deny a litigant access to the courts, or violate his or her constitutional right to due process. (Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 221-222.)
"A court exercises its discretion in determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant. [Citation.] We uphold the courts 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.]" (Bravo v. Ismaj, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.)
Here the evidence establishes that Jaramillo has filed numerous motions in this proceeding, some several times, that the court determined were nonmeritorious. He does not claim otherwise. This is sufficient to support the trial courts order.
Jaramillo also contends the court abused its discretion in failing to consider his motion asking the court to pay for his mental health evaluation. That motion was not before the court at the January 30, 2006, hearing, and was not a subject of the prefiling order from which Jaramillo has appealed.
DISPOSITION
The courts order finding Jaramillo to be a vexatious litigant is affirmed.
We Concur:
VARTABEDIAN, Acting P.J.
WISEMAN, J.