NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFfH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re Finding of

F063915

RONALD E. PIERCE

OPINION
as a Vexatious Litigant.

THE COURT
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; proceeding to find Ronald E. Pierce a vexatious
litigant.
Ronald E. Pierce, in pro. per.
-ooOoo-

Before Kane, Acting

P.J.,

Poochigian, J. and Detjen,

J.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

Over the last seven years, Ronald E. Pierce, in propria persona, has filed,
prosecuted or maintained several appeals which this court determined lacked merit.
Accordingly, this court concludes that Mr. Pierce is a vexatious litigant within the
meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(l)1 and should be
subject to a prefiling order. ( 391 7.)
.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 21, 2011, this court issued a written order and notice to Mr. Pierce
that he appeared to be a vexatious litigant as defined by section 391, subdivision (b)(l).
The order Listed the appeals filed in this cow1 that qualified Mr. Pierce for vexatious
litigant treatment. The order further notified Mr. Pierce that the court was considering
declaring him a vexatious litigant and prorubiting him from filing any new litigation in
the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding
just:Ice or judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. ( 391. 7.) The
order invited Mr. Pierce to file evidence and argument on or before January 10, 2012, on
the question of whether this court should declare him a vexatious litigant subject to a
prefiling order. The order stated the matter was set for oral argument on January 17,
2012, at 2:45 p.m.
Mr. Pierce filed papers in opposition on January 9, 2012, which this court has
reviewed. l-Je also appeared and presented oral argument on January 17, 2012.
DISCOSSJON
Vexatious Litigant Law

The vexatious litigant statutes were created to curb misuse of the court system by
those acting in propria persona who repeatedly file frivolous lawsuits or attempt to
relitigate issues previously determined against them. ( 391-391.7; Bravo

v.

Ismaj

(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 222-223; for an overview of the vexatious litigant statutory
1

Further statutory references are to the Code of CiviJ Procedure.

2.

scheme see Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The
Rutter Group 2011) 1:914 et seq., pp. 216-222 et. seq. or 3 Witk.in, Cal. Procedure (5th
ed. 2008) Actions, 365 et seq., p. 470.)
Section 391.7, subdivision (a), the prefiling order provision, curbs misuse by
prohibiting 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.

(Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th

43, 59-61 [rejecting constitutional challenges].)2 "Litigation'' for purposes of vexatious

litigant requirements includes proceedings initiated in the appellate court by notice of
appeal or by writ petitions other than habeas corpus or criminal matters.

Westwood Park Assn.

(McColm v.

(1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1219.)

The statutory definition of "vexatious litigant" includes a litigant who:

"(l) In th e immediately preceding seven-year period has
commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria pers ona at least five

litigations other than in a small claims cou1t that have been (i) finally
determined adversely to the person ...." ( 391, subd. (b)(I).)
There need not be pending litigation for a court to move to declare an individual a
vexatious litigant and s ubj ect him to a prefili:ng order. The prefiling order is directed at
precluding the initiation of a meritless lawsuit and the costs associated with defending
such litigation. Thus,section 39 I .7 affords protection to defendants named in pleadings
not yet filed with the court. If individuals named as d efenda nts in th ese lawsuits were

In

Mahdavi v. Superior Court (2008)

166 Cal.App.4th 32, the court held that the

requirement to seek leave to file an appeal does not apply to a

declared a vexatious litigant in

unrelated litigation.

defendant who hai; been

The court reasoned that an appealing

defendant is not filing "'new'" litigation but rather attempting to "'undo"' the results of
litigation that had been instituted against him.

(Id. at pp. 40-41.)

3.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

required to wait until the action was pending, tbe prefiling order provided for in
section 391.7 wouJd be illusory.

(Bravo v. lsmaj, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at pp. 222-223.)

A court on its own motion may declare a party a vexatious litigant and enter a
prefiling order. ( 391.7, subd. (a).) For example, in In

re Luckett

(1991) 232

Cal.App.3d l 07, the Court of Appeal issued a written order notifying Luckett that it
appeared he was a vexatious Utigant based on his having filed 43 different appeals and
writs as well as unmeritorious motions, pleadings, and other papers. The order notified
Luckett the court was considering entering a prefiling order declaring him a vexatious
litigant and prohibiting him from filing any new litigation without first obtaining leave of
the presiding judge.

(Id.

at p. 108.) The order directed the clerk to set the matter for

hearing on a given date, advised Luckett of his right to appear before the court at that
time and present argument and evidence on whether he was a vexatious litigant and
whether the court should enter the proposed prefiling order. (Ibid.) Luckett submitted
written materials disputing whether he met the criteria to be declared a vexatious litigant
but did not appear at the scheduled hearing. (Id. at p. 109.) The court considered
Luckett's written arguments, found him to be a vexatious litigant within lhe meaning of
the statute, and entered a prefiling order barring him from filing new litigation without
the permission of the presiding judge. (Id. at p. 110.)
ln Jn

re Whitaker ( 1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 54,

57, the Court of Appeal declared

Whitaker a vexal:.ious litigant after ordering him to show cause why a prcfiling order
should not be granted. The matter was set for hearing, Whitaker appeared and presented
arguments, and the court issued a written opiruon decJaring him a vexatious litigant
subject to a prefiling order.

InAndrisani v. Hoodack (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 279, 281, Andrisaru had been

found to be a vexatious litigant on two occasions in published Court of Appeal decisions.
When And.risani fli ed an application for a waiver of court fees and costs in anticipation of
filing a new appeal, the court issued an order requesting the parties to file memoranda

4.

addressing whether the court should issue a prefiling order that would prohibit him from
filing new litigation.

(Id.

at pp.

280-281.)

Based on those responses, the court found no

sound reason to preclude it from issuing a prefiling order and did so.

(Id.

at p.

281.)

Notice and Hearing Requirements

Although the statute is silent on the subject, an individual may not b e declared a
vexatious litigant without a noticed motion and hearing, which includes the right to oral
argument and presentation of evidence.
p.

225.)

(Bravo v. lsmaj, supra, 99 Cal.

App. 4th at

However, faiJure to hold oral argument or a hearing does not necessarily

constitute prejudicial error. If the litigant is afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate
the issues in the documents he or she files, the error may be harmless.

(Id.

at pp.

225-

227. )
Application to Mr. Pierce

Mr. Pierce meets the definition of a vexatious litigant provided in section 391,
subdivision (b)(J ), in that in the immediately preceding seven-year period he has
commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations that
have been finally detennined adversely to him. The following is a list of six such cases:

1.

In F059887,

In re the Marriage ofRonald E. Pierce and Nadira M. Arreola,

Mr. Pierce appealed from the trial court's order of February

19, 2010, denying

his request for a modification of child custody and other relief. This court
affirmed the order of the lower court on February

2.

In

17, 2011.

F060078, ln re the Marriage ofRonald E. Pierce and Nadira M Arreola,

Mr. Pierce appealed from the trial court's order entered on April

9, 2010,

extending a restraining order against him. This court affirmed the order of the
lower court on February 1 7, 2011.
3. ln

F060724, Jn re the Marriage ofRonald E. Pierce and Nadira M. Arreola,

Mr. Pierce appealed from the trial court's order of June

25, 2010, which

5.

--- --

--

---

increased bis visitation time with his children but denied some of the relief he
had sought. This court affirmed the order of the lower court on May
4. In

F061097, Pierce v. Arreola,

entered on September

3, 2010,

20, 2011.

Mr. Pierce appealed from the trial court's order

which, among other things, denied his petition

for writ of habeas corpus, denied his motion for protective order, and denied
bis request for appointment of attorney. This court affirmed the order of the
lower court on August 31,

2011.

5. InF061379, Pierce v. Arreola, Mr.

of October l ,

20 l 0, that denied his

Pierce appealed from the trial court's order

motion to obtain protective orders and to

modify child custody arrangements. This court affirmed the order of the lower
court on August

6.

In

3J,2011.

F06l386, Pierce v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board,

Mr. Pierce appealed the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of
mandate arising out of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board decision
denying his request for disability benefits. This court affirmed the order of the
lower court on October 12,

201 I .

DISPOSITION
This court finds that Ronald E. Pierce is a vexatious litigant withJn the meaning of
section

39 J.

Henceforth, pursuant to section

391.7, Ronald E.

Pierce may not file any

new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of
the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be
filed."

( 391.7,

court,

(Ibid.)

subd. (a).) Disobedience of this order may be punished as a contempt of

"The presiding justice or presiding judge shall permit the filing of that

litigation onJy if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the
purposes of harassment or delay. The presiding justice or presiding judge may condition
the filing of the litigation upon the furnishing of security for the benefit of the defendants
as provided in Section

39l.3." ( 391.7,

subd. (b).)

6.

The clerk of this court is directed to provide a copy of this opinion and order to the
Judicial Council. ( 391.7, subd. (e).) Copies shall also be mailed to the presiding judge
and clerk of the Tulare County Superior Court.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

7.

CJBNS.ORG