SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 01/13/2012

TIME: 02:00:00 PM

DEPT: 53

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown

CLERK: E. Brown
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
CASE NO: 34-2011-00105419-CU-BT-GDS CASE !NIT.DATE: 06/17/2011
CASE TITLE: Oneal vs. State Fund Insurance
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion

APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for an Order Declaring Jerry Lynn Oneal a Vexatious Litigant
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Summers & Shives, PC, Martin Shives and Ian Williamson's Motion to Declare Plaintiff Jerry
Lynn O'Neal a Vexatious Litigant and for a Prefiling order is granted as follows.
The procedural history relevant to the instant motion is as follows. Plaintiff O'Neal filed a civil action in
Alameda Superior Court for claims arising out of a February, 2004 accident in which O'Neal was struck
by a vehicle operated by Blacow Auto Repair. In December of 2007, moving Defendants Summers &
Shives substituted as counsel for Blacow, the driver of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle. During
Summers & Shives' representation of the defendants, O'Neal's counsel agreed to dismiss the claims
against the owner and the driver of the vehicle. Summers & Shives worked on the case until August 27,
2008, when they filed a notice of disassociation of counsel. Summers & Shives did not participate in the
trial of the first Alameda County action, which commenced on April 19, 2010. After trial, the jury returned
a verdict of $50,000 against Blacow. In June of 2010, Blacow filed a cost bill for approximately $106,000
pursuant to CCP 998 and based on O'Neal's rejection of an earlier settlement offer. In July of 2010, the
Court entered a modified judgment, ordering O'Neal to pay $56,826.51 to Blacow. Following this order,
O'Neal sought to challenge the judgment. On October 7, 2010, O'Neal filed an ex parte motion to vacate
the judgment, which was denied by Judge Richard Keller (Def. RFJN Exh. B, C.) On December 6, 2010,
O'Neal filed a second motion to vacate the judgment and for a new trial, as well as a motion to disqualify
Judge Keller. (Def. RFJN Exh. D, E.) In his memorandum in support of the second motion to vacate,
O'Neal stated: "I will make this motion and drag everyone into court 1000 times if necessary... ! will file
this motion until it is granted. I will force the defendants to defend it forever and the insurers to pay for
the defense forever..." (Def. RFJN Exh. D.)
On November 9, 2010, appearing in pro per, O'Neal filed a second civil action in Sacramento Superior
Court (2010-00091233) alleging collusion and fraud against the moving Defendants and 32 other
defendants. (Def. RFJN Exh. G.) On February 18, 2011, Defendants' motion to transfer the action to
Alameda Superior Court was granted. On August 11, 2011, the anti-SLAPP motion of Defendants
Simoncini, Winters, Johnson, Lin and McDonald was granted by the Alameda Court. (RFJN Exh. M.) On

DATE: 01/13/2012

Page 1

MINUTE ORDER

DEPT: 53

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

Calendar No.

CJBNS.ORG

CASE TITLE: Oneal vs. State Fund Insurance

CASE NO: 34-2011-00105419-CU-BT-GDS

August 26, 2011, O'Neal filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the Simoncini
anti-SLAPP motion, the court rejected the filing and O'Neal did not serve the motion on Simoncini (RFJN
Exh. 0.). On October 7, 2011, the Alameda Court granted the moving Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion.
(RFJN Exh. P.) The motions for summary judgment of two additional groups of defendants were granted
on September 9, 2011. (RFJN Exh. Q, R.)
On June 17, 2011, O'Neal filed the instant action, styled as a class action, alleging cause of action for
Unfair Business Practices, Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress against substantially the same defendants named in the second action. (RFJN Exh.
L.) O'Neal's claims in this action also arise out of the personal injury action. (Id.) Summers & Shives
filed an anti-SLAPP motion in response to O'Neal's complaint, which this Court granted on September 9,
2011. (RFJN Exh. U.) The anti-SLAPP motions of two other groups of defendants were granted on
October 3, 2011 and October 14, 2011. (RFJN Exh. V, W.) On October 14, 2011, O'Neal filed a motion
for reconsideration of the order granting Summers & Shives' anti-SLAPP motion, in which he argued,
"The court cannot keep concealing the actions of the defendants under the immunity clauses, if so the
plaintiff will seek federal review as a violation of my civil rights and due process rights [p.2]...The court is
therefore biased and prejudiced in defendants' favor. The court has allowed the defendants and the
defendant attorneys absolute immunity for known criminal conduct actually Aiding and Abetting the
crimes. [p. 4-5.]" (RFJN Exh. X.)
Defendants argue that O'Neal's filing of successive civil actions and threats of future litigation in his
papers warrant a determination that O'Neal is a vexatious litigant. Defendants also contend that O'Neal's
correspondence indicates his intent to continue to file additional lawsuits. For example, Defendants
present a September 27, 2011 email from O'Neal in which he writes: "I have made the conclusion that
the California court will continue to shield and protect the attorneys in spite of the overwhelming
evidence against them in this matter. I will therefore appeal the SLAPP decisions of the court each and
every time they are granted ... ! have no choice but to file eight or so separate individual federal lawsuits
against all defendants adding as defendants Superior Court Judge Robert Keller..." (Shaffer Deel. Exh.
2.) Defendants also present a transcript of a September 12, 2011 voicemail received by Summers &
Shives' counsel in which he stated: "...So I don't know how long this is gonna take but this is gonna take
awhile until your clients are in jail cuz they're crooks and any and any normal person see that and they're
not gonna be immune from it no matter how long it takes, no matter what route this has to take, no
matter what it has to do..." (Musfelt Decl.1[3)
Defendants move for an order declaring O'Neal a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP 391(b)(3), which
provides that a person may be declared a vexatious litigant where he or she: "In any litigation while
acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts
unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause
unnecessary delay." Under CCP 391.7, "the court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party,
enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation without first
obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed."
"The remedy is directed at precluding the initiation of a meritless lawsuit and the costs associated with
defending such litigation." (Bravo v. lsmaj (2003) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 222.) The proceedings described
above establish that O'Neal filed untimely post-trial motions in the original Alameda County action and
attempted to disqualify Judge Keller without any legitimate basis, filed a second action in which two
anti-SLAPP motions and two summary judgment motions have been granted, and filed a third action in
this Court in which three anti-SLAPP motions have been granted. O'Neal has not opposed many of
these dispositive motions and has not prevailed on any motion practice to date. Further, O'Neal's
correspondence and representations in his pleadings indicate his indifference to the merits of his
litigation and his intent to continue to litigate regardless of judicial determinations that his claims lack
merit. "[W]here a defendant involved in pending litigation learns the plaintiff is planning to file a similar
lawsuit, the defendant may, as the defendants did here, avail themselves of section 391.7 in order to

DATE: 01/13/2012
DEPT: 53

MINUTE ORDER

Page 2
Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Oneal vs. State Fund Insurance

CASE NO: 34-2011-00105419-CU-BT-GDS

prevent filing of yet another lawsuit..." (Bravo, supra, 99 Cai.App.4th at 224.) Defendants' showing is
sufficient to demonstrate that O'Neal should be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant CCP 391(b)(3).
Defendants' motion is granted. A prefiling order pursuant to CCP 391.7 shall issue. Pursuant to CCP
391.7(e), the clerk shall provide to the Judicial Council a copy of the prefiling order.
The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court's signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.

cc:

Vexatious Litigant Prefiling Orders

California Judicial Council
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

DATE: 01/13/2012
DEPT: 53

MINUTE ORDER

CJBNS.ORG

Page 3
Calendar No.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

>

:;
1

2
3

4
S
6
7

BRUCE L. SHAFFER, SB# 62730

E-Mail: shaff er@lbbslaw.com
RICHARD A. SULLIVAN, SB# 201544
E-Mail: rsullivao
bbslaw.com
2850 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 450
Satrainento, California 95833
Telephone: 916.564.5400
Facsimile: 916.564.5444

14
15

SUPERIOR COURT OF

JERRY LYNN ONEAL,

'

I ': I"! ; '1 C ..., l ,,

I....
r /'
, . T
. :::d

'' .

'

.. .--

,
,)

CASE NO. 34-20ll-00105419

Plaintiff;

[GPeSSBtf>Ri>ER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS SUMMERS & SHIVES,
MARTIN SHIVES AND IAN
WILLIAMSON'S MOTION FORAN
ORDER DECLARING JERRY l..YNN
O'NEAL A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT [CCP

vs.

STATE FUND iNSURANCE, eta!.,

391-391.7]

Defendants.

l-Ion. Honorable David Brown

January 13,2012
2:0 0 p.m.
53

Judge:
Date:
Time:
Dept.:

Action Fi led :
Trial Date:

19

20
Defendants SUMMERS & SHIVES,

A.P.C., MARTIN

June 17, 2011

Norie Set

SHIVl'::S and IAN

22

WILLIAMSON'S Motion For Order Declaring Plaintiff JERRY LYNN O'NEAL A Vexatious

23

Litigant Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 39I(b)(3) And For Prefiling Order Pursuant

24

to Section 391.7 was timely noticed for hearing on December 14,2011, but was continued,

25

pursuanttoPlaintiJI's & Parte request for a continuance, to January 13,2012 in the above.

J.ne;:;:.;Y.llq""'

COUNTYOFSACO

18

LEWIS

TI-lE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

17

BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
B<!MIHUP

,...

Attorneys for Defendant. SUMMERS &

SHIVES, A P.C., MARTIN SHIVES and IAN
WILLIAMSON

16

21

.1.

_. ' l. I' ''

@l

10

13

12

12 JAhi 2 4 Pil I: t15

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

11

I.:

.. . .

. -

'

.. .

..

.--

..

--- - - . .

-- . . . . .

.. ..

.. .

26

entitled Court. On January 12, 20\2, the Court issued its tentative ruling GRANTING the Motion.

27

On Januaq 12, 2012, Plaintiff Jerry Lynn O'Neal requested oral argument, but on ianuary 13,

28

2012, Pla intiff informed the Court he would not attend the hearing and waived oral argwnent.
4849-7063-{5046.1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS SUMMERS & SHIVES,

MARTIN Sl-llVES AND EAN

WILLEAMSON'S MOTION FOR ORDER DECLARING PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

BY FAX

TIIEREAFTER, the Court affirmed its tentative ruling as follows:

Defendants SUMMERS & SHIVES A.P.C. , MARTIN SHNES, and IAN

WILLIAMSON'S Motion .For Order Declaring Plaintiff Jerry Lynn O'Neal A Vexatious Litigant

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 391(bX3) And For Pre:filing Order Pursuant to

Section 391.7 is granted. A copy of the Court's Minute Order is attached herero as Exhibit "A"

and incorporated by reference.

7
8

For the reasons set forth in the Court's Minute Order, Plaintiff JERRY LYNN O'NEAL is
hereby found ID be a "Vexatious Litigant"\lndcr Code of Civil Procedure Section 391(b)(3).

Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 391.7, Plaintiff JERRY LYNN O'NEAL is hei;eby prohibited

10

from fiiing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without .first obtaining

11

leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience

12

of this Order by Plaintiff may be punished as a contempt of court.

13
14

Pursuant to C.C .P. Section 391.7(e), the Clerk shall provide to the Judieial Counsel a copy
of the prefiling order.

15
16

DATED: January2012

17
18
19
20. Approved as to form:

21

DA.TED: January__, 2012

22

DAVID I.

BROWN

Plaintiff, JERRY LYNN O'NEAL

23
24
25
26
27

LEWIS

BRISBOIS

BISGAARD
&:M!HUP
AAe...,.o.JUIW

28
4'841063-.6046. l

[PRO r
ND
NT=s=-'s :!::
"'
=UMM
:=:R
, S=c&
-:7::
::'."
IA
":"'. ,.,.,N
:-:::
=
=
SHlV
,s=- E , -=-M=:=T:=IN""S""H""l
7c-AR
V
"'o-==
s ED=1 '""'o=R-=n=E=RG=R,..,ANT=IN..,.
=
D=E=FEN=-c
=:S::-E A
E
G
D A:-::
E
WlLLLo\MS ON'S MOTION FOR ORD E RDECLARING PLAINTIFF A V
XATIOUS Lm G ANT

EXHIBIT A

...

/
,

NOTICE:

...rilied oral argume nt on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Court at (916) 874-7858
.. nent 53) by 4:00 p.m. the court day before this hearing and advise opposing counsel. If n o call ls
..c1e, the tentative ruling beoomes the order of the court. Local Rule 3.04.
Department 53
Superior Court of California
800 Ninth Street, 3rd Flnor
David I. Brown, Judge
E. Brown, Clerk
V. Carroll, CA, Bailiff

Friday, January 13, 2012, 2:00 PM

Item- 1

07AS03993
Batrlce Mohr & Richard M ohr vs. Ken johnson, M.O.

Nature of Proceeding:

Filed By:

Motion for an Undertaking

Doyle Thomas J.
,

Defendant Ken Johnson, MD s Motion for U ndertak ing is denied.

.'

This is a medical malpractice action arising out of tha death of Krystal Mohr, the
-daughter of Plaintiffs Babice and Richard Mohr. Trial in this a ction comm enced on

June 7, 2011, and on June 24, 2011, the juiy found that Defendant D r. Johnson's care
and tre atmen t of Krystal did not fall below the applicable standard of care. Costs were
ultimately awarded to Dr. Johnson in the amount of $15,606.45. On August 29 2011,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the judgmeil.t

Although Dr. Johnson concedes that an undertaking is not required when a judgmen t
is solely for costs awa rded by the trial court (CCP 916(d)), Or. Johnson a rgues that
the Court s hould exercise its discretion pursut to CCP 917.9(a)(3) to require
Plaintiffs to file an undertaking in order fo sta y enforcement of the judgment awarding
costs pending appeal. Dr. Johnson contends that an undertaking is warranted because
the evidence on the s1andard of care and causation was overwhelmingly-in favor of
Dr. Johnson, as the jury required only four hours to return its verdict and the verdict
was unanimous in favor of Dr. Johnson." (Opening Mem o . 2:23-26.) Further, Dr.
Johnson argues that Plaintiffs may be experiencing financial difficulties, and that an
undertaking is appropriate to ensur e that Dr. Johnson will be able to recover the costs
awarded.

However , any und ertaking ordered pursuant to the Court's discretion

under CCP

917 .9(a)(3) "shall be in an amount sufficient to cover all damages which the

respondent may sustain by reason of the stay in enforcement of the judgment or

order. As Plaintiffs argu e in opposition. Dr. Johnson has presented no ev_ideri
_ ce_or
.'9rgumeni..regarding .any .damages.he-maycsusiain:.as:i;Jesiilii" the :OE!iay. iri .enforcing.
the judgment awarding costs. Although Dr. John son alludes to a potential toss of
"

interest as a resul t of the stay in enforcement, Or. Johnso n presents no evidence

regiirding the amount of such interest.
Dr._ Joh nson filed no reply in support of his motion.

44, Department 44 will be d ark on January 13, 2012. In the event any party
requests oral argument, the matter will be heard in Department 44 on January
. 19, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. Per Local Rule 3.04(8), any request for oral argument must
be made by 4:00 p.m. on January 12, 2012, to the courtroom clerk of Department
44 at (916) 874-8243.

/
,/

Defendants US Bank, N.A., et al s demurrer to Plaintiffs Javie r Cano and Maria

.'

Montoya Cano's first amended complaint ("FAG"} is continue d to February 17,

2012;

at

11 a.m. in department 44.

_
Piaintiffs" 44 page opposition is an egregious violatio n of CRC rule 3.1113(d) and (f).
Plaintiffs failed to obtain leave of court to file an oversized memorandum of points and
authorities as r eq ui red by CRC rule 3.1113(e). The oversized opposition is ordered
stricken. (CRC .rules 3.1113(g) and 3.1300(d).) No later than F eb rua ry 3, 2012,

Piaintiffs shall file and serve an amended opposition memorandum that fully comp l ies

with all rules of court. In the future the Court may exercise its discretion to simply
,

refuse to consider oppositio n papers filed in violation of the rules of court, including
rule 3.1113(d). No later than Febru ary 9, 2012, Defendants may fi le and serve an
amended reply.

The tentative ruli ng for the February 17, 2012, hearing on the demurrer will be posted
by Department 44 on February 16, 2012.
Tile minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant ta CRC Rule
3.1312 or further not ice is required
.

Item

2010-00093070-CU-FR
John Park vs. Roland Hernandez
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:

Hearing on Demurrer

Stepanski, Lisa A.

This matter is dropped. The c le rk entered dismissal of the entire action on December
15, 2011.

Item 7

2011-00100428-CU-OR
Ray Palma vs. Bank Of America

Naiure of Proceeding: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

Filed By: Mich_ie, Doug
The unopp osed motion to be relieved as counsel is granted. The court will sign the
order submitted, which shall be effect ive upon the fili n g of the proof of service of the
"

signed order upon the client.''

Item 8

2011--00105419-CU-BT

I!

Jerry Lynn Oneal vs. State Fund Insurance

Motion for an Order Declaring Jerry Lynn One a l a Vexatious Litigant

Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:

S!iaffer, Bruce

L.

Defendants Summers & Shives. PC, Ma_rtin Shives and Ian Williamson's Motion to
Declare Plaintiff Jerry Lynn O Neal a Vexatious litigant and for a Prefiling order is.
granted as follows.
/
'

'

The procedural history re.levanl to the instant motion is as follows. Plaintiff O'Neal filed
a civil action in Alameda Superior Court for claims arising out ofa February, 2004
acc ident in which O;Neal was struck by a vehicle operated by Blacow Auto Repair. In
December of 209_7; moving Defendants Summers & Sh ives substituted as counsel for
Blacow, the drivorofthe vehi cle , and the owner of the vehicle. During Summers &

Shives' representation of the defendants, O'Neal's counsel agreed lo dismiss the

claims against t he owner and the driver of the ve hicle. Summers & Shives worked on
the case until August 27, 2008, when they filed a notice of disassocialion of counsel.
Summers & Shives did not partic ipate in the trial of the first Alameda County action,
which commenced on April 19, 2010. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of $50,000
.against Blacow. In Junf! of 2010, a1acow filed a cost bill for approximately $106,000
pursuant to CCP 998 and based on O'Neal's rejection of an earlier settlement offer.
In July of 2010, the Court entered a modified judgment, ordering Q'Neal to pay
$56,8:26.51 to Blacow. Following this order, O'Neal sought to chal l enge the judgment.
Oo October 7, 201 0 , O'Neal filed an ex parte motion to vacate the judgment, which
was d en ied by Judge Richard Keller (Def. RFJN Exh. B, C.) On December 6, 2010,
O'Neal filed a second moti on to vacate the judgment atld for a new trial, as well as a
motion to disqualify Judge Keller. (Def. RFJN Exh. D, E.) In his memorandum in
support of the second motion to vacate , O'Neal stated: "I. will make this motion ;md
drag everyone iriio court 1000 ti mes if necessary.. . ! will file this motion until it is
granted. I will force the defendants to defend it forever and the insurers to pay for the
defense forever. . ." (Def. RFJN Exh. D.)

On November 9, 20 1 0 ,

appearing in pro per, O'Neal filed a second civil action in

Sa.:;ramento Superior Court (2010..00091233) alleging collusion and fraud against the
moving Defendants and 32 other defendants. (Def. RFJN Exh. G.) On February 18,
201 l, Defenda.nts' moti on to transfer the action to Alameda Superior Court was
granted. On August 11, 2011 , the anti-SLAPP motion ofDefendants Simoncini,
Winters, J o hns on, Lin a n d McDonald was granted by the Alameda Court. (RFJN Exh.
M.) On August26, 2011, O'Neal filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting
the S i monci ni anti-SLAPP motion, the court rejected the filing and O'Neal did not serve
the mo t i on on Simoncini (RFJN Exh. 0.). On Octobec 7, 2011,the Alameda Court
granted the moving Defendants' anti-SL.APP mot ion . (RFJN Exh. P .) The motions for
summary judgment of two additional groups of defendants were gra nted on Septe mber

9, 2011. (RFJ N Exh. Q, R.)

On Jun e 17, 2011, O Neal filed the ins tant action, styled as a class action, allE!ging
'

-cam;aohie!itm-fcrunfuir-8asinesspractfues,-Vio!ation-of Cansmnertega!-Remedies

Act and Negligent Infliction of motio nal Distress against substantially. th e saine
defendants named in the second act;on. (RFJN Exh. L.) O'Nea!'s claims in this action.
als_o arise oul of the personai injury action. (Id.} Surn_mers & Shives filed an _anti
SLAPP inotioil in response to O Neal s complaint, which this Court grantE!d on
September 9, 2011. (RFJN Exh_ U.) The anti-SLAPP motions of two other groups o f
'

'

defendants

were grant ed on October 3, 2011 and Oc tober 14, 2011. (RFJN

Exh.

W.) On October 14, 2011, O'Neal filed a motion for reconsideration of the or der

V,

gr ant ing Summers & Shives' anti-SLAPP m otion , in which he argued, 'The court
cannot keep co nceali ng the actions of the defendants un der the immunity clauses, if
so the plaintiff will seek federal review as a vielation of my civil righ1S and due process
rights [p.2] ... The court is therefore biased and prejudiced in defendanis' favor: The
court has allowed the defendants an d the defendant attorneys absolute immunity for
know n criminal conduct actually Aiding and Abetting the crimes. [p. 4-5.]" (RFJN Exh.

X.)

Defendants argue that O'Neal's filing af su ccess ive civil action s and threats affuture
litigation in his papers warrant a determination t hat O'Neal is a vexatious litig ant .
Defendants also conte nd that O'Neal's correspondence ind icates his intent to continue
. to file add iti ona l lawsuits. For exampia, Defendants prer, ent e September 27, 2011
email from O'Neal in which he writes: "I hav e made the eonclusion th at the California
court wfll continue to sh iel d and protect the attorneys in spite of the overwhelming
. evidence against them in this matter . I wi ll therefore appeal the SLAPP dec ision s of
the court each and every time they are granted ... I hav e no choice but to file eight or so
separate indi vi dual fe der al la w suits again st all defendants adding as defendants
Superior Court Judge Robert Keller. .. " (Sh;;iffec Deel. Exh. 2.) Defendants also present
a trans c ript of a Sept ember 12, 2011 voicemail received by S u m mers & Shives'
coun sel in which he stated:" . So I don't know how long this is gonna take.but this is
gonna take awhile until yeur cli ents are in jeil cuz they're crooks aaa any and any
nor.ma! p erson see that and they're not go n na be imm u ne from It no matt er how long ii
takes, no mallet what route this has to take; no matter what ii h as to do . . " (Musfelt

..

Deel. 'IJ3)

Defendants move for an order declaring O'Neal a vexatious litigan t pursuant to CCP
391(b)(3) , which prevides that a person may be decl;;ited a vexatious litigant where
he or she: 1n any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files
unQleritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery,
or engages in other taetics that are fr ivolous or solely in.tended. to cause unnecessary
delay." Under CCP 391.7, "the court may, on its own motion or the motion of a.ny
party, enter a pr eft li n9 order which proh ibits e vexatious litigant fr om fi l ing any new
litigation without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the oourt whe re the

litigation is pro posed to be fi led.'

"The remedy is directed at precluding the initiation of a meritless lawsuit and the costs
associated with defen ding such litigatfon.' (Bravo v. lsmaj (2003) 99 Cat App.4th 211,
222.) The pr oceedi ngs described above establish that O'Neal fri ed u ntime ly post-trial
mcitions in th e original Alameda County action and attempted to disq ua lify Judge Keller
without any legitimate basis, filed a sacond action in wh ich Jwo anli-SLAPP motio ns
and two s ummary judgment motions have bee.r:i gran.ted, and filSd a third action in this
Court in which three anti-SLAPP moti o ns have been granted. O'Neal has not opposed
many of these d ispo sitiv e motions and has not preva iled on any moUon practice ta
da te. Further, O' Nea l's correspondence and representations in his ple adin gs indicate
his indifference to the me r its oi his lrtig atio n and his intei:it to continue to litig ate

'feg araress ofjuaiffiToeterm!natrons1ttarmsciaimS1ackmetit.[W]frere11"liefendant

involved. in pe nd ing litigation learns the plaintiff is planning to file a similar lawsuit, the
defendant may, as the defendants did here. avail themselves of sec!iCin 391-,? ln order

to prevena ft!ing afyat another iawsuit... (Bravo, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at 224.)

Defendant!;' showing is sufficient to demo ns tr ate that O'.Neal should be declared a
vexatious litigant purs u ant CCP 391 (b)(3).

Defendants' motion is gr anted. A pliling order pursuant to CCP 391.7 shall issue.
Pursuant to CCP 391.7(e), the clerk s h al l provide to the Judicial Council a copy of
'
the prefilin g order.

The prevailing party shall

C.R.C. 3.1312.

Item

prepare a formal or der for the Court's signatu re pursuant to

2010-00089172-CL-CL

. Fresno Credit Breau vs. Melanie N. Autrey

Natu re of Proceeding: Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption
.
Filed By: Su hr, John D.

This matter is continued on the Courfs own motion to Ma rch 9, 2012. The judgment is
for. me<fical services provided to the judgrn<:mt debtor. The judgment debtor states in
her claim of exemption that she is attempting to negotiate payment of the amount
owe
_ d with her insurance company. The heai'ing on the claim of exemption is th erefo re
continued for two months in order to permit the d ebto r to conclude s uch negotiations, if
possible.

The judgment debtor shall file a states report with the Court no later than March, 2,
2012_

Item

10

2011-00116171.CL-PO

Lawrence Wong vs. Sun Wong

.
Natu re of P roceed i ng :
Filed By:

Chen,

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Ernest

Plaintiff Lawrence Wong's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent I njunct ion is ruled
upon as follows.
This action appears to arise out of certa in election proceedings conducted by the
Wong Family Benevolent Association of Sacramento ("WFBA"), a nonprofit, private
social organization. Plaintiff has been a member of the WFBA since 1 S73, and alleges
that he has been elected president of the WFBA on three sepa rate occasions,
including for the term running through December of 2011. Plaintiff alleges he was most
recently elected pre side nt in for an additional term run ni ng lhrol!gh <1014 at an el e ction
held on Novembe r 18, 19, and 20, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that on approximately
December 12, 2011, Defendant Sun G. Wong "surreptitiously fonmed a splinter group
within the WFBA" and purported to remove Plaintiff as president and elect Sun G.
Wong as Interim President, in. vio.lation of the WFBA bylaws. (Complaint 1J20.) Plaintiff

ilo"v moves for apreiimf(iatj-li1Ju:ncTICti.Eff:IOifil;lffb'efe'ndar1rsU-;i"G'WOOQ""ffOrTf-..-.-.'undertaking, participating,

WFBA.

and acting in any capacity as an officer or.director" of the

g whether to enter a preliminary injunction, the court must evaluate two

In .de cidin

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
&SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT lAW

2850 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 450

Sacramento, California

95833

916.564.5400
916.564.5444

Telephone:
Fox:

www.lbbslow.com

RICHARD A. SULLIVAN
916.646.8216

DIRECT DIAL:

January 23,

File No.
31532.16

2012

E-MAIL: RSULLIVAN@LBBSLAW.COM

Sacramento County Superior Court

Clerk of the Court -Civil
720 Ninth Street
Sacramento. CA 95814
Re:

Jeny O'Neal v. State Fund Insurance, et al.

Sacramento Superior Court Action No.: 34-2011-00105419

Dear Sir or Madame:

Enclosed with this letter please find an original and one copy of the following:
1.

2.

Proposed Order Granting Defendants Summers & Shives, Martin Shives and Ian
Williamson's Motion for an Order Declaring Jerry Lynn O'Neal a Vexatious Litigant;
and
Correspondence dated January 16, 2012, from Richard A. Sullivan directed to
Jerry Lynn O'Neal.

Our office never received a response from Mr. O'Neal to our letter dated January 16, 2012,
asking that he approve as to form and sign the enclosed Proposed Order. Therefore, please enter
the Order as enclosed and return to us a file-endorsed copy of the Order in the stamped, self
addressed envelope provided.
Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Should you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call.

__...,,..,._
..

t\VEb
'!>\'I.

Q;'
. ullivan of
Richa
LEWI BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SM ITH LLP

'I.\\

C\

RAS/jj- Enclosure(s)

ATIANTA BOl\UMONT CK'\RLESTONCHICAGO DALLAS FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAFAYETTE LASV{GAS LOSANGELES NEW ORLEANS
NEW YORK NEWARK ORANGf COUNTY PHOEND< SACRAMENTO SAN BERNARDINO S'\N DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO TAMPA
4839-5778--0750.1

TIJCSON

BY FAX

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGMRD
&SMITH LLP
ATIORNE'/S Al LAW

2850 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 450

Sacramento, California 95833
Telephone: 916.564.5400

Fax: 916.564.5444
www.lbbslaw.com

RICHARD A. SULLNAl'I
DIRECT DIAL: 916.646.8216
E-MAIL'.

CJBNS.ORG

January 16, 2012

File No.
31532._16

RSULUVAN@LBBSLAW.COM

VIA E-MAIL AND MAIL

Jerry Lynn O'Neal

3230 E. Flamingo Rd
Suite 8, PMB 306
Las Vegas, Nevada 89121
Re:

O'Neal v. State Fund

Our Clients: Summers & Shives, APC, Martin Shives and Ian Williamson

Dear Mr. O'Neal:

Defendants Summers & Shives, APC, Martin Shives and Ian Williamson's Motion
For Order Declaring Plaintiff A Vexatious Litigant was granted by the court pursuant to the
tentative ruling of January 12, 2012. Enclosed please find a Proposed Order which I have
prepared for filing with the Court. Please review the Order and approve as to form by
January 20, 2012, or we will file it with the Court.
If you have any questions or concerns with the Order, please contact me
immediately to discuss and state your concerns in writing pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312.

Very truly yours,

Isl
Richard A. Sullivan for
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
RAS/

AMf'.HA BEAUMONTCHARLESlON
NEW YORK

CHIC..0.GO Q.AJ.JAS FORl lAUDERDALE HOUSTON LAFAYETTE LA.SVEGAS LOSANGEL(SNEW ORLEANS

NEV./ARK' ORAf.IGE COUNlY PHOENIX SACAAMENl'O BERNARDINO SAN Dli:GO WJ FRANCISCO TAMPA TUCSON

4838-3810-1!430.1