Case Number: BC106174 Hearing Date: January 03, 2019 Dept: 1

According to records maintained by the Judicial Council, David Delman was formally declared a vexatious litigant on October 20, 1994 by Judge Stephen E. O’Neil in Los Angeles Superior Court case BC106174, Delman v. Blowitz, et al. Under that order, Mr. Delman became subject to a CCP § 391.7 prefiling requirement by which he is required to get the permission of the presiding judge to file new litigation, which permission is granted only if it appears the litigation has merit and is not being filed for purposes of harassment or delay. (CCP § 391.7(b).) In Los Angeles Superior Court, the presiding judge has designated the supervising judge of the civil division to exercise this authority and responsibility. (See CCP § 391.7(e).)

On July 10, 2014, Judge Michelle R. Rosenblatt in Los Angeles Superior Court case BC518877, Etame, et al. v. Copart Inc., et al., determined that Lori Wagner is the same person as David Delman and ordered that Ms. Wagner was subject to the same prefiling order requirement as Mr. Delman.

On July 12, 2018, this court considered and denied, for the reasons specified in that order, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate as a void order the above-noted October 20, 1994 order. In reaching its conclusion the court had considered the motion and supporting documents filed by Plaintiff on June 18, 2018; the supplemental papers filed by Plaintiff on June 25, 2018; and Plaintiff’s lengthy arguments made at the July 12, 2018 hearing. The court hereby incorporates by reference that earlier July 12, 2018 order.

On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed an appeal of this court’s order (Court of Appeal case B291653), which concluded on August 30, 2018 when the Court of Appeal denied a prefiling order for the appeal.

On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed another appeal (Court of Appeal case B292413), which concluded on September 6, 2018 when the Court of Appeal denied a prefiling order for the appeal.

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed another appeal (Court of Appeal case B292516), which concluded the same day when the Court of Appeal denied a prefiling order for the appeal.

On September 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed another appeal (Court of Appeal case B292695), which concluded on October 4, 2018 when the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

On October 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed another motion in this court to vacate as a void order the above-noted October 20, 1994 order and reserved the hearing for October 25, 2018.

On October 25, 2018, this court noted that appellate case B292695 appeared to be pending due to Plaintiff’s lodging of a petition for rehearing with Department 1 and that the matter was stayed in this court pursuant to CCP § 916(a). Accordingly, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate without prejudice.

On December 5, 2018, this court received the remittitur for B292695 containing the Court of Appeal order dismissing the appeal.

On December 24, 2018, this court received a copy of the Mr. Delman’s October 2, 2018 motion, which the court construes as the moving papers. Mr. Delman has not filed any new documents related to this motion, other than an ex-parte application for accommodations, since this court’s October 25, 2018 order.

Mr. Delman’s motion is an untimely and improper motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 12, 2018 order, as well as the court’s March 18, 2015 order, each of which resolved the question of whether Judge O’Neil’s October 20, 1994 order in BC106174 was void on its face. (CCP § 1008.) Mr. Delman contends in the instant motion, as he did in connection with the motion heard on July 12, 2018, that Judge O’Neil’s October 20, 1994 order overruled a federal court order, could not be based upon a federal court case under appeal at the time of the order, particularly considering Plaintiff obtained a significant award from Merrill Lynch that disposed of that appeal, and there was no notice or opportunity to be heard as to the October 20, 1994 order. As noted in this court’s July 12, 2018 order, the court considered and rejected these contentions. Moreover, as this court stated in its order dated March 18, 2015:

Judge O’Neil had the jurisdiction in case BC 106 174, over which he presided, to determine David Delman was a vexatious litigant under any of the definitions set forth in CCP § 391. His order set forth the grounds for his conclusion, including Mr. Delman’s admission at a demurrer hearing regarding the plethora of simultaneous actions he was litigating in propria persona in a variety of venues. The order did not improperly infringe on Mr. Delman’s rights – including his access to the courts in other cases – as it made orders specifically provided for in the law by CCP § 391.7: Mr. Delman would not be denied access to the courts if he evidenced to the presiding judge or justice that any proposed current or future litigation had merit and was not being filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. Accordingly, the court finds that this 20-year-old order was not void on its face.

The court finds no basis to deviate from its long-standing determination that the October 20, 1994 order challenged by Mr. Delman is not void on its face.

The court DENIES Mr. Delman’s motion to vacate the October 20, 1994 order.

Clerk to give notice.