RESPONSE TO MINUTE ORDER

(b) If, after hearing evidence on the motion, the court determines that the litigation has no merit and has been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay, the court shall order the litigation dismissed. This subdivision shall only apply to litigation filed in a court of this state by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order pursuant to Section 391.7 who was represented by counsel at the time the litigation was filed and who became in propria persona after the withdrawal of his or her attorney.

Next, when Plaintiff was filing the instant case, there was no prefiling order limiting Plaintiff from instituting the case.

Further, Plaintiff was unrepresented when she filed the instant case. This fact clearly placed her outside the limit imposed by CA Civ Pro Code § 391.3 (b) (2021).

Therefore, CA Civ Pro Code § 391.3 (b) (2021) is clearly inapplicable in Plaintiff’s situation.

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), if, after hearing the evidence upon the motion, the court determines that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant, the court shall order the plaintiff to furnish, for the benefit of the moving defendant, security in such amount and within such time as the court shall fix.

Plaintiff further refers this Court to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b), which identifies the factors that may be considered in determining whether a Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, which factors include:

i.            Whether the Plaintiff, in pro per, has, in the past seven years, has commenced at least five cases that have been determined against the Plaintiff, or that have been delayed for at least two years without being brought to trial and/or hearing;

ii.            Whether the Plaintiff re-litigates, in pro per, a matter that was already settled in a previous case;

iii.            Whether the Plaintiff repeatedly makes unmeritorious filings in the court; or

iv.            Whether the Plaintiff has previously been declared a frivolous litigant.

In the instant action, Plaintiff’s conduct in the prosecution of the case is nowhere near vexatious and/or frivolous.

First, in the past seven years, Plaintiff has never commenced any actions, that have been determined against her. She has also never delayed any action for at least two years.

Next, the instant complaint is not a re-litigation of any previous matter that Plaintiff has ever brought in court against the Defendants. Notably, the causes of action in the Complaint filed in this action are materially different from the causes of action in Plaintiff’s other case.

Third, Plaintiff has made no frivolous filing. A filing is frivolous where it can be said that it indisputably has no merit, such that any reasonable attorney would agree that it is totally and completely without merit. Corbett v. Hayward Dodge, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 915, 922. All filings that Plaintiff has ever made in the instant case have been purposeful, in pursuit of justice for the Plaintiff. At no point has Plaintiff ever intended to oppress the Defendants, or to subject them to harassment. Instead, Plaintiff has made meritorious filings either in response to the Defendant’s filings, or seeking specific reliefs from the court.

“An illegality which renders … void, is such an illegality as is contrary to the principles of law, as distinguished from rules of procedure.” See Ex parte Gibson, 31 Cal. 619 [ 91 Am.Dec. 546]. The illegalities spoken of are no mere error as to a mode of procedure. They are the doing of what there was no power or authority in law to do, the exercise of powers not given by law, and hence the judgment is void. See Hurd, Habeas Corpus, pp. 327-329, and notes. See Ex parte Page, 49 Mo. 291; Howard v. People, 3 Mich. 207; Gurney v. Tufts, 37 Me. 130 [58 Am.Dec. 777]; see also Freem, Judgm. § 625.”

A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also Restatements, Judgments ‘ 4(b). Prather v. Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910.

A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. … It is not entitled to enforcement … All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. See 30A Am Jur Judgments ” 44, 45.

In the foregoing sections of this Response, Plaintiff has established how sections a and b do not apply to Plaintiff’s case. The judge’s order was therefore not aligned to the law, which fact makes the order void.