Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Require Plaintiff to Furnish Security and Dismissal Upon

Filed By: Rice, Stephanie D.

Defendant San Juan Unified School District’s motion pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure §391 et seq. to require plaintiff, a vexatious litigant, to furnish security
before further prosecution of the current litigation is GRANTED.

Although plaintiff filed on 9/27/2013 what is construed as an opposition to the present
motion, it fails to address the merits of defendant’s motion. Instead, plaintiff merely
insists defendant’s motion should be denied because plaintiff was the “victim of
ongoing crimes by the defendant” and “demanding I pay the defendant is harassment.”

The Court finds that defendant has met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure §391
et seq. to prevail on the present motion and to require plaintiff, recently declared to be
a vexatious litigant, to furnish security before further prosecution of the current
litigation.

First, on 7/18/2013 in Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2012-00130337, this
Court declared plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant since she has filed more than five
actions in the preceding seven years, all of which were determined adversely against
her.

Second, the Court finds that plaintiff Barnes has no reasonable probability of prevailing
against defendant in the current action for several independent reasons. The claims
asserted in the present action (defamation, “wrong full termination” and retaliation) are
barred in whole or part by a multitude of procedural and substantive defenses. The
claims alleged here are probably barred by res judicata since essentially identical
claims arising out of the same facts were previously asserted and adjudicated against
plaintiff in Barnes v. San Juan Unified School District, Sacramento Superior Court
Case No. 34-2011-00100643. The claims alleged here also appear on their face to be
barred in large part by the applicable statutes of limitations as the events giving rise to
these claims occurred no later than 2009. The claims being asserted by plaintiff are all
subject to the Government Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code §810 et seq.) but plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate timely compliance with the claims presentation requirements.
Plaintiff’s defamation claim appears to be based on a non-actionable opinion by
defendant and is subject to the absolute litigation privilege found in Civil Code §47 as
well as other statutory immunities afforded to defendant as a public entity. The
retaliation cause of action is unintelligible and fails to plead facts sufficient to state a
valid cause of action for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(“FEHA”) found in the Government Code as plaintiff has failed to establish she
engaged in any “protected activity” or suffered any actionable “adverse employment
action,” much less showing a causal connection between the two. Additionally, it
appears that plaintiff failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies under FEHA,
which is itself fatal to the retaliation claim. For all these reasons along with the others
identified by defendant, this Court holds plaintiff has no reasonable probability of
prevailing in this case.

In light of the foregoing, defendant is entitled under Code of Civil Procedure §391 et
seq. to an order requiring plaintiff to post a bond which can be used to secure payment
of attorney fees and costs incurred by defendant in responding to this action.
Defendant seeks a bond in the amount of no less than $19,911.05 based on the
$8,530 in fees and costs incurred before plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant,
another $1,380 in fees and costs incurred since then plus an additional $9,990
expected to be incurred in connection with defendant’s anticipated anti-SLAPP motion
and/or motion for summary judgment. While defendant is entitled to a bond, the
amount requested appears excessive under the circumstances and this Court finds
that security in the amount of $15,000 is reasonable and appropriate here.

Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §391.6 the present action is hereby
deemed automatically stayed as of 9/6/2013, the date defendant filed its motion, and
shall remain stayed until ten (10) days after plaintiff posts the requisite $15,000 bond.

Should plaintiff fail to post an appropriate $15,000 bond on or before 11/8/2013,
defendant may notwithstanding the stay imposed pursuant to the preceding paragraph
file and serve a duly noticed motion to dismiss the present action pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure §391.4.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, defendant
to prepare a formal order.