Gc045202 Court Order Re March 17, 2015 App to Vacate Pre Filing Order - Court Fails to Examine...

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ATE: 04/01/15

ONORABLE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

ONORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.

JUDGEII L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM

DeputySheriffll NONE

DEPT. 1

DEPUTY CLERK

ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

Reporter

1:30 pmlGC045202 *NO LEGAL FILE* PlaintiffCounselBTATB OF FBLICITA CATANEDA

NON-APPEARANCEVS

DefendantTHE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.

Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/141ST VOL SENT 10/15/14

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

COURT ORDER RE: MARCH 17, 2015 APPLICATION TO VACATEPRE-FILING ORDER/REQUEST TO FILE NEW LITIGATION;MARCH 25, 2015 APPLICATION TO VACATE PRE-FILINGORDER/REQUEST TO FILE NEW LITIGATION

Jose Castaneda ("Castaneda") and James Blume("Blume") are ostensibly two vexatious litigants whohave tended to jointly file their court pleadings.According to Judicial Council records, Castaneda wasdeclared a vexatious litigant on May 18, 2012 incase BC 466 737, presided over by Judge Philip H.Hickok, and Blume was declared a vexatious litigantonJ1JrV:~H_J.,7J~_~Ql:3__iJ].__9c:l.13_~Be 45:3_664, pJ;eEJ On March 17, 2015, the court received both an MC-703"APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO VACATE PREFILING ORDER ANDREMOVE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FROM JUDICIAL COUNCILVEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST" form (which was curiouslydated January 7, 2015 at the signature line) and anMC-701 "REQUEST TO FILE NEW LITIGATION BY VEXATIOUSLITIGANT" form, both of which were lodged in propriapersona by "Jose Castaneda aka James Blume." Thefirst document shows separate telephone numbers ande-mail addresses for Castaneda and Blume, whichnegates that Castaneda is the same person as Blumedespite the use of the "aka" ("also known as")designation atop both forms. However, a close

Page 1 of 11 n:e:PT. 1MINUTES ENTERED04/01/15COUNTY CLERK


DATE: 04/01/15HONORABLE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

HONORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.

JUDGEII L. ISMAELJUDGE PROTEM


DEPT. 1

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporter

1:30 pmlGC045202 *NO LEGAL FILE* PlaintiffCounselESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDA

NON-APPEARANCEVS


Counsel



review of both documents indicates Castaneda is onlyseeking relief on his own behalf in bothapplications. Therefore, the court will disregardand strike as improper and contrary to law Blume'sname shown as an "aka" on both documents and hisadditional signature on the application to vacateprefiling order, because Blume (as a non-attorney)cannot advocate for this relief on Castaneda'sbehalf. See CCP 436i see also Business &Professions Code 6126.

On March 19, 2015, supplemental documents weresubmitted by Castaneda in support of the aboveapplication.

On MarC1125, 2015, the court received a new MC-703form and a ~new~MC":76~iformfrom "Jose Castaneda akaJames Blume" along with supporting documents.

Again, a close review of the documents indicatesCastaneda is only seeking relief on his own behalfin both applications. Therefore, the court willagain disregard and strike as improper and contraryto law Blume's name shown as an llaka" on thedocuments and his additional signatures on both theapplication to vacate prefiling order and request tofile new litigation, and any other submitteddocuments, because Blume (as a non-attorney) cannotadvocate for this relief on Castaneda's behalf. SeeCCP 436i see also Business &PrOfessions Code 6126.

Page 2 of 11 DEPT. 1MINUTES ENTERED04/01/15COUNTY CLERR

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ..COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE: 04/01/15HONORABLE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

HONORABLE

R. ECHONr C.A.

JUDGE II L. ISMAELJUDGE PRO TEM

DeputySheriffllNONE

DEPT. 1

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporrer


NON-APPEARANCEVB


Counsel



March 17 Application to Vacate Prefiling OrderBecause JUdge Philip H. Hickok is no longer with thecourt and therefore not available, Department 1 mayconsider this application as the designee of thePresiding Judge. See CCP 391.8{a) ("If thatjustice or judge who entered the order is notavailable, the application shall be made before thepresiding justice or presiding judge, or his or herdesignee.")

There are several problems with this application.First, court records indicate that Castaneda appliedfor this relief last year, which request was deniedon April IS, 2014. If an application for thisrelief is denied, the applicantmust wait at leCist12 months after the date of the-denial of a priorapplication before again seeking this relief. CCP 391.8(b). Therefore, Castaneda'S March 17, 2015application is premature because it was brought lessthan 12 months after his last application wasdenied.

Even if the application were to be considered, itdoes not seek to vacate the above-noted prefilingorder entered in case BC 466 737 but instead, at 2of the form, seeks to vacate purported prefilingorders entered (1) March 28, 2012 in Los AngelesSuperior Court case B 223 549 and (2) "Not entereddenied May IS, 2010" in Court of Appeal case BC 402096 [note: the court names have erroneously been

Page 3 of 11 DEPT. 1:kl:NUTES ENTERED

04/(\)1/15COuNTY CLERK


DATE: 04/01/15

HONORABLE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

HONORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.

JUDGEII L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM

DeputySheriffllNONE

DEPT. 1

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporter

*NO LEGAL FILE* PlaintiffCuunsel

1:30 pmlGC045202

ESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDAvsTHE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.



DefendantCounsel

NON-APPEARANCE

reversed as to these cases]. Regarding Los AngelesSuperior Court case BC 402096{ the court cannotvacate a prefiling order that even Castaneda admitsdoes not exist. Regarding Court of Appeal case B223 549 (an appeal of BC 402 096 in which the trialcourt's ruling was affirmed) { that case wascompleted on August 18{ 2011 - prior to whenCastaneda indicates a prefiling order was entered -and thus there is also no prefiling order tochallenge in that case (and if there were, it wouldhave to be challenged at the Court of Appeal and notin this court) .

Even if the court were to presume that Castanedameant to challenge the prefiling order enteredagainsthirn May l8{ 2012 in case BC 466 737{Castaneda has failed to evidence he quaLlfies forthe relief sought. A pre-filing order may bevacated and removal of a vexatious litigant's namefrom the Judicial Council's list of vexatiouslitigants be ordered only upon a showing of amaterial change in the facts upon which the orderwas granted and that the ends of justice would beserved by vacating the order. CCP 39l.8(c)_Thus, while a vexatious litigant determination maybe erasable, erasure requires substantial evidencethat the vexatious litigant has mended his ways orconduct. Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th77{ 83. Substantial evidence that bears on whethera vexatious litigant has mended his ways is not somesuccess in litigation, but evidence that he has

Page 4 of 11 DEPT. 1MINUTES ENTERED04/01/15COUNTY CLERK


DATE: 04/01/15


HONORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.

1: 30 pm1GC045202

JUDGE II L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM


*NO LEGAL FILE* Plaintiff

DEPI'. 1

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporter

Counsel

ESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDAVSTHE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.



Defendant

Counsel

NON-APPEA.RANCE

given up suing people as a way of life. Id. at93-94. Such evidence includes proof of a propensityfor honesty, of efforts at obtaining gainfulemployment, of genuine remorse for the costs oflitigation inflicted on the defendants who were theobject of previous lawsuits, and of some genuineeffort at restitution toward the previous victims ofhis litigation, including actual payment of costorders made by the courts in prior litigation. Id.

Evidence of this sort is not offered by Castaneda.In 3 of the form, in which the applicant maydescribe the requisite material change, and also ina separate "Motion for a pre-Filing Order" thatinstead supports the request to vacate the prefilingorder, Castaneda lists 12 cases in which he wasinvolved or allegedly involved as well as a succinct-summary of each (including accusations ofmalfeasance on the part of several attorneys andjudicial officers). Although difficult to follow,it appears this is an attempt to challenge thevalidity of his being determined to be vexatiousihowever, the time to challenge that order has longexpired. Thus, the entirety of the application doesnot set forth in any way that he has "mended hisways" as is the focus of this determination. In thesupplemental one-page handwritten document lodgedMarch 19, 2015, accompanied by a copy of the orderdeclaring Castaneda to be vexatious and by copies oftwo unsigned proposed orders, Castaneda continuesarguing in the same vein and therefore these also

Page 5 of 1.1 DEPT. 1.MINUTES ENTERED04/01/1.5COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

DATE: 04/01/15


HONORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.,

1:30 pmlGC045202

JUDGE II L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM


*NO LEGAL FILE* Plaintiff

DEPT. 1

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporter

Counsel

ESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANBDAVSTHE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.



Defendant

Counsel

NON-APPEARANCE

are unhelpful to Castaneda's application.

The "party" box on the form application includes thepurported caption "Request for ClarificationHearing, for Change of Venue to Federal Court, for aReversal of Fraudulent Judgment Obtained by Fraud."This is a non-sequitur to the form itself; further,no argument in this regard is forwarded and, asnoted above, any challenge to the 2012 determinationthat Castaneda is a vexatious litigant has long beentime-barred.

Based on all the above, Castaneda has offered nodiscernible admissible evidence probative of amaterial change in the facts upon which hispre-filing order was issued, and the contents ofthis application support the conclusion that he hasnot "mended his ways" or changed his overall outlooktowards litigation. Accordingly, the court DENIESthis application to vacate the CCP 39l.7(a)pre-filing order issued against Castaneda.Castaneda may not file another application for thisrelief until at least 12 months after the date ofthis order. CCP 391.8{b).

March 2S Application to Vacate Prefiling OrderThis application seeks the same relief as theapplication above, but provides different argumentsregarding alleged attorney and judicial malfeasancein 3 of the form. This application suffers fromsimilar substantive defects as the application



~TE:04/01/15

)NORABLE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

)NORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.

JUDGE II L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM


DEYI'. 1

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporter

*NO LEGAL FILE* PlaintiffCounsel

1:30 pmlGC045202




Defendant

Counsel

NON-APPEARANCE

above, in that it fails to evidence Castaneda has"mended his ways" or changed his overall outlooktowards litigation. Further, because this courtdenied this relief less than a year ago and is alsodenying the above application, this application alsois brought prematurely and is DENIED.

As already noted above, Castaneda may not fileanother application for this relief until at least12 months after the date of this order. CCP 391.8(b) .

March 17 Request to File New Litigation

Castaneda's request to file new litigation is notaccompanied by any proposed pleading. On the form,he indicates he seeks approval to file across-complaint and counter-claim for damages incase "GC 045 202 (GC 039 459, GC 039 473)," allegingthis has merit because the Pasadena courthouse clerkwithheld documents in order to "fix cases" andengaged in other wrongdoing, as did his attorneys,the court reporter, and a judicial officer.

Case GC 045 202 resolved via judgment of dismissalon December 29, 2010 after the court granted themotion for judgment on the pleadings brought by thedefendants (Jack K. Conway Esq. and Law Offices ofJack K. Conway). Case GC 039 459 was dismissed onApril 16, 2008 pursuant to counsel's stipulation, asthe plaintiff (Felicitas Castaneda) had died and



DATE: 04/01/15


HONORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.

JUDGEIl L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM


DEPT. ~

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporter


1:30 pmlGC045202


2nd vol. sent 10/10/14~ST VOL SENT 10/15/14


Defendant

Counsel

NON-APPRAR.ANCE

therefore counsel would "proceed with the estate inprobate." Case GC 039 473 was similarly ordereddismissed on April 23, 2008, with the court notingthat all matters "will be adjudicated in the probatecourt." Thus, Castaneda is time-barred from filingsuch a cross-complaint or counter-claim in any orall of these cases. See, e.g., CCP 428.50{c) (thecourt may grant leave to file a cross-complaint "atany time during the course of the action") .

Accordingly, Castaneda has failed to carry his CCP 391.7{b) burden of proof to show the proposed newlitigation has merit and the court also DENIESCastaneda's request to file this proposed newlitigation.

March 25 Request to File New Litigation

castaneda's request to file new litigation seeksleave to file (I) the above-noted application tovacate the prefiling order and remove his name fromthe vexatious litigant list, and (2) additionaldocuments in case "GC 045 202 {GC 039 473 - GC 039459)." As to the first part, there is no need forpermission to file an application to vacateprefiling order, as seen above. As to the secondpart, the proposed filings are difficult todecipher, but it appears they primarily argueagainst Castaneda's then-lawyer and other attorneys.As these cases ended years ago (details above),these arguments are time-barred and thus lack merit.

Page 8 of 11 DEPT. 1MINUTES ENTERED04/01/15CO'UNTY CLERK


)ATE: 04/01/15

IDNORABLE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

IONORABLE

R. ECHON1 C.A.

JUDGEII L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM

Deputy Sheriffll NONE

DEPT. 1

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporter


1:30_pmIGC045202~

JESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDAVSTHE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.



Defendant

Counsel

NON-APPEARANCE

To the extent that the submitted papers criticizeJudge William D. Stewart's demeanor at one or morerecent hearings I the proper path is not to file adocument but instead to make a formal writtencomplaint to the Presiding Judge's Office. Itappears Castaneda has already done so. To theextent that the submitted papers seek to bring a CCP 170.6 challenge to Judge Stewart, there is nomerit to that filing because it was brought untimelyunder CCP 170.6(a) (2): the case was assigned toJudge Stewart on October 2, 2014 and this challengeis brought more than 15 days after notice of thatreassignment.

AccordinglYI Castaneda has failed to carry his CCP 39l.7(b) burden of proof to show the proposed newlitigation has merit and the court also DENIESCastaneda's request to file this proposed newlitigation.

No Hearing on April 15, 2015

Castaneda served documents on numerous other partiesreflecting a purported April 15, 2015 hearing datebefore Presiding Judge Kuhl in Department 91. Thereis no such hearing on calendar. Therefore,Castaneda is ordered to serve copies of this entireorder on all parties upon whom the earlier documentswere served.

Additional Comment

page 9 of 11 DEPT. 1MINUTES ENTERED04/01/15COUNTY CLERK


DATE: 04/01/15


HONORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.,

JUDGEII L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM


DEPT. 1

DEPUTY CLERK


Reporter


NON-APPEARANCEVS


Counsel



The court notes that much of Castaneda'sapplications argues that his prior attorney Jack K.Conway has been disbarred; however, at all therelevant times of the above representation, Conwaywas eligible to practice law. (The first publicdisciplinary action was an August 30, 2013suspension for misappropriation of client funds andfailing to comply with conditions of a 2011 privatereproval, followed by a July 20, 2014 order that hewas ineligible to practice law and the formal orderof disbarment on December 20, 2014.)

Moving party is to give notice.

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I, the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of theabove-entitled court, do hereby certify that I amnot a party to the cause herein, and that on thisdate I served the above minute order upon each partyor counsel named below by placing the document forcollection and mailing so as to cause it to bedeposited in the United States mail at thecourthouse in Los Angeles, California, one copy ofthe original filed/entered herein in a separatesealed envelope to each address as shown below withthe postage thereon fully prepaid, in accordancewith the standard court practices.



DATE: 04/01/15 DEPI'. 1

HONORABLE KEVIN C. BRAZILE JUDGEII L. ISMAEL DEPUTY CLERK

HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR

R. ECHON, C.A. DeputySheriffll NONE Reponer


1:30 pmlGC045202


Defundant

Counsel

NON-APPEARANCE



Dated: April 1, 2015

Clerk

ecutive Officer/Clerk

By:

Sherri R.

Jose CastanedP.O. Box 947Pasadena, California 91102

Page 11 of 11 DEPT. 1MI:NOTES ENTERED04/01/15COUNTY CLERK

Gc045202 Court Order Re March 17, 2015 App to Vacate Pre Filing Order - Court Fails to Examine...

Documents

Transcript of Gc045202 Court Order Re March 17, 2015 App to Vacate Pre Filing Order - Court Fails to Examine...