Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10-4

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 1 of 3

E,XHIBIT A

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10-4

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 2 of 3

t
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 THE SUPERIORCOURTOF THE STATEOF CALIFORNIA IN AI\D FORTIIE COUNTYOF SAII DIEGO

t r I ' L EOoullD t o"^"|Qt
o"t "r"r,

38 JUN 300?

DePutY A. BY: Gerba'

9
M. l 0 JAN{ES KINDER,

NO. ) CASE Grc882oo0
)

Plaintiff, v , 100, INC. t2 ADECCO, andDOESI through inolusivo, ' Defendants. 13
1l

I4 15

) ) ) ) ) ) )
)

LIFTINGAIJTOMATIC ORDER STAY AND DEI.IYING DEFENDAIIT'S REQIJEST DISMISSAL FOR AI'IDOR (CCP$ REQUTREMENT A SECURTTY OF 391, seq.) et

FOR 1 6 AFTERREVIEWING THE NOTICE OF VEXATIOUSLITIGANT AI{D REQUEST

t 7 DISMISSALAND/OR SECURITY,AS WELL AS THE OPPOSITIONTHERETO,TIIE
1 8 COURT HEREBY RULES: t9
to seotion James Kinder is subjectto a pre-filing orderpursuant Codeof Civil Procedure

of 20 391, etseq. The orderprohibits Mr. Kinder from filing litigation in pro per without approval judge of the court wherethe litigationis to be filed. Here, Mr. Kinder is a plaintiff 2 T thepresiding

22 in an actionfiled by an attorney,ChadAustin. On June8,2007, defendantfiled a Notice of
section 391.7, subdivision(c). This 23 VexatiousLitigant pursuantto Code of Civii Procedure to 24 created automaticstay. Plaintiff filed an opposition the Notice of VexatiousLitigant on an (CCP $ 391.7(c).) to 25 June 2007, 25, which is within the statutoryperiod respond.

26

(a) section39l,7, subdivision statesthat the court may, "entera Codeof Civil Prooedure

of litigantfromfiling anynew litigationin thecourts 27 prefiling order whichprohibitsa vexatious judge of the court leaveof the presiding withoutfirst obtaining 28 this state propriapersona in
ORDER - 1

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10-4

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 where litigationis proposed be filed." Thestatute not,on its face,preclude litigant the to does a 2 subject a pre-filingorderfrom filing a lawsuit to whilerepresented counsel, in this case. by as

3 Further, thereis nothingto suggest the pre-filingorder againstMr. Kinder includes that a 4 prohibition against counsel filing suit on his behalf. Thus,thereis not a violationof thepre)

filingorder ThoCourthereby lifts theautomatic andrequires stay defendant pleadwithin 10days to following service thisorder. of

6 7 8 9 l0 11

IT IS SOORDERED.

DATED:

JUN 8 2|/E7 2

t2 13
t4 15 16

t7
18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER - 2