Imposition Of Sanctions Was Error Because Filing Of Motion Stayed Further Proceedings Except A Ruling On The Vexatious Litigant Motion.
In Hanna v. Little League Baseball, Inc., Case Nos. E070995 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 18, 2020) (partially published; sanctions discussion published), defendant filed a motion to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigation under CCP § 391(b), requesting plaintiff post security and requiring plaintiff to obtain judicial prefiling permission for other pleadings—common requests in this type of motion. Defendant also had moved to obtain discovery sanctions against plaintiff. The lower court entertained all these motions at the same time, granting the vexatious litigant motion and ordering plaintiff to pay $1,200 in discovery sanctions. Although affirming the vexatious litigant determination, the 4/2 DCA reversed the grant of discovery sanctions. The reason was based on the clear statutory language of CCP § 391.6, which stays proceedings such that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and to impose discovery sanctions.
Comments