Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Assn.

A mother is not bound by a pre-filing order that applies to her vexatious-litigant son, since her own filing sought relief on behalf of herself as well as the son.  Distinguishing Say & Say, Inc. v. Ebershoff (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1759 on the ground that it involved an alter ego corporation that was not a separate entity from its vexatious litigant owner, this decision holds that the trial court erred in dismissing without notice a complaint filed by the mother of a vexatious litigant.  Though the complaint mentioned the vexatious litigant son and claimed relief on his behalf, the mother also owned different property in the same development and so could and did assert her own rights in the suit.  The mother was not bound by the vexatious litigant order against her son.  So it was error to dismiss the suit without notice or hearing insofar as it alleged claims on the mother’s behalf.

California Court of Appeal (Codrington, J.); June 23, 2017; 2017 WL 2705626

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s