Case Number: BC606737 Hearing Date: January 03, 2019 Dept: 1

Arogant Hollywood aka John Walton was formally declared a vexatious litigant on April 7, 2016 by this court in Los Angeles Superior Court case BC 607945, Hollywood, et al. v. The Vons Companies Inc. Co-plaintiff Alison H. Fairchild aka Alison Helen Fairchild was concurrently declared to be vexatious. As a result, each of them became subject to a CCP § 391.7(a) prefiling order requirement, which requires each of them to obtain a prefiling order from this court before filing any new litigation in propria persona. An application to vacate a prefiling order shall be made before the judge who entered the order if that judge is available; otherwise, the application shall be made before the presiding judge or his or her designee. (CCP § 391.8(a).) As Judge Brazile is in a different assignment at Los Angeles Superior Court and therefore is not available, Department 1 shall consider the matter as the designee of the presiding judge.

On November 21, 2018, the court received a document entitled “Plaintiff Arogant Hollywood’s Notice of and Motion to Vacate Vexatious Litigant Order Entered in February 2016 & remove Plaintiff from California State Vexatious Litigant List,” which is signed solely by Mr. Hollywood. On November 21, 2018, the court also received a document entitled “Plaintiffs’ Notice of and Motion to Vacate Vexatious Litigant Order Entered in February 2016 & Remove Plaintiff from California State Vexatious Litigant List,” which is signed both Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild. The court notes that the memorandum of points and authorities are identical for each motion. Therefore, the court shall treat the motions together as seeking to remove Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild from the vexatious litigant list pursuant to CCP § 391.8.

The document is not accompanied by the optional-use Judicial Council form VL-120 (formerly MC-703) “Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff/Petitioner from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List.” The court reminds Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild that any future request for relief pursuant to CCP § 391.8 may be made via application, such that a scheduled motion hearing is not required.

Pursuant to CCP § 391.8, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order under CCP § 391.7 may file an application to vacate the pre-filing order and remove his or her name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to pre-filing orders. (CCP § 391.8(a).) The pre-filing order may be vacated and removal of a vexatious litigant’s name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants be ordered only upon a showing of a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order. (CCP § 391.8(c).)

Thus, while a vexatious litigant determination may be erasable, erasure requires substantial evidence that the vexatious litigant has mended his ways or conduct. (Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 77, 83.) Substantial evidence that bears on whether a vexatious litigant has mended his ways is not some success in litigation, but evidence that he has given up suing people as a way of life. (Id. at 93-94.) Such evidence includes proof of a propensity for honesty, of efforts at obtaining gainful employment, of genuine remorse for the costs of litigation inflicted on the defendants who were the object of previous lawsuits, and of some genuine effort at restitution toward the previous victims of his litigation, including actual payment of cost orders made by the courts in prior litigation. (Ibid.) In seeking to vacate a prefiling order, the litigant cannot challenge the propriety of the court’s imposition of that prefiling order. (In re Marriage of Rifkin and Carty (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 1339, 1347.)

Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild have failed to meet this burden. Mr. Hollywood attests that he has not filed new litigation to Department 1 or any other California superior court since July 2017 and has “not submitted any new lawsuits to Department [sic] regarding any allegations or accrued causes of action from the years 2016, 2017, and 2018.” (Hollywood Decl. ¶ 8.) Mr. Hollywood attests that he has no plans or desire to file additional litigation in California. (Id. ¶ 9.) The motion is also brought by Ms. Fairchild, however the court has not received any evidence in support of Ms. Fairchild’s request.

While the court acknowledges that Mr. Hollywood has not been as active in the Los Angeles Superior Court as he once was, his refraining from litigation for a year and a half is not sufficient to satisfy this court that there has been a material change in his circumstances. (See Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 96 (noting a “decent interval-certainly no less than four years” would be a sufficient passing of time for the litigant in that case to seek to have a prefiling order lifted after his unsuccessful appeal).) The court notes that Mr. Hollywood utilizes an email address on the instant motions entitled “causeofaction39,” which is indicative of his propensity for litigation. Additionally, Mr. Hollywood does not appear to show any genuine remorse for his prior litigation. Rather, Mr. Hollywood notes that some of his prior cases were dismissed and did not cause the defendants “substantial” litigation fees. (Mo. at p. 10-11.)

Mr. Hollywood contends the vexatious litigant order prevented him from submitting a writ of mandamus, (Mo. at p. 11), but admits that Judge Brazile “ruled that Plaintiff could file the writ of mandamus.” (Mo. at p. 12.) Mr. Hollywood also contends that other judicial officers in other superior courts in California are refusing his filings in a case in which he is a defendant. (Mo. at p. 12, Hollywood Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 6-7.) The vexatious litigant designation does not, as a matter of law, prevent Mr. Hollywood from defending himself or filing an appeal of a judgment or interlocutory order in an action in which he was a defendant. (See John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 98.) However, this court is not the proper forum for Mr. Hollywood to seek redress for his allegations of impropriety against judicial officers in other superior courts. Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild have not demonstrated that the interests of justice are served by vacating the prefiling order.

For all of these reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild’s motions to vacate the CCP § 391.7(a) pre-filing order issued against them, as they have not presented sufficient evidence for this court to grant the relief requested. (See CCP § 391.8(c).) As set forth in CCP § 391.8(b), Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild may not file another application for this relief until at least 12 months after the date of this order.

Clerk to give notice.