Case Name: Kathryn Cserna v. AAMCO Transmissions
Case Number: 2015-1-CV-285641

Defendant requests the Court declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, as well as stay this matter until she posts $2,474.00 security, estimated to be the reasonable fees and costs to Defendant to proceed with this matter. No Opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.

For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT the request to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and will issue a prefiling order against Plaintiff. As Plaintiff has filed a Request for Dismissal and Dismissal has been entered on June 17, 2016; and as the trial date of July 25, 2016 has thus been vacated; the Court DENIES, without prejudice, the request that the matter be stayed pending Plaintiff’s deposit $2,474 as security. This latter request is moot as a result of the entry of dismissal.

CCP § 391 provides a vexatious litigant is one who:

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.
The statute authorizes the court to declare a party a vexatious litigant based on a pattern of filing civil actions which are either abandoned or determined adversely to the filer, to require that security be furnished before an already pending action can proceed, to stay the action until that security is furnished, and to declare the party a vexatious litigant.

As an initial matter, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice.

I. The Court will GRANT Defendant’s request to declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.

Ms. Cserna has filed at least six lawsuits in the past seven years (see Cserna v. Denny’s Restaurant [Bay Area Diners], Cserna v. Centennial Recreation Center [Morgan Hill], Cserna v. Morgan Hill Police Officer Greg Dini [Carlos Guerrero], Cserna v. Morgan Hill Police Department Chief David Swing, Cserna v. Singh, et al, Cserna v. AAMCO Transmissions) which have been determined adversely to her. Defendants provided sufficient evidence to establish that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, as defined in the statute. Therefore, the Order to declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant is GRANTED.

II. The Court will “enter a prefiling order” prohibiting a “vexatious litigant from filing claims without its permission.”

The Court may, on its motion, or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order which, under CCP § 391.7, “prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing 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.” On a case-by-case basis, “the presiding justice or presiding judge shall permit the filing of that litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.”

Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrates sufficient need to grant this motion. The Court will GRANT Defendant’s request for a prefiling order against Plaintiff.

The Court will sign the Proposed Orders submitted with the moving papers, as modified to reflect the Court’s tentative ruling.