FIIJED

llllllllll lll l l lll lll llll ll lllllllll

'-. --- --*55271_5: -

ALAMEDA COUNTY

MAR 2 6 2007
CLERK Of THE 5UFEP.IOH COURT

By_ i;__ JJ:f!h1/1r_ -J'

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

CHARLES MATTHEW HALL et al.

No. HG05-195512

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

MARIA BOBADILLA

No. HG06-273171

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

KEITH AARON VANN et al.

No. HG05-198134

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

ISAAC KYLE

No. HG05-239923

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

SEAN REESE et al.

No. HG04-173023

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH J. STUDNEK
et al.

No. HG06-270054

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

SARAH SHAKER et al.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.
THELTON E. HENDERSON et al.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.
CHARLES HALL et al.
JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.
GRANVIL TEASLEY et al.

No. HG06-270494

No. HG05-219869

No. HG05-239024

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

_)

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH J. STUDNEK
et al.

No. HG06-271253

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.

RODNEY LANESSE et al.

No. HG06-273173

MARIA BOBADILLA vs.

JOSEPH LAWRENCE WILLIAMS et al.

No. VG04-164659

GLOBAL MISSIONS UNLIMITED AND

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS vs.
BISHOP OF FAITH NOBLE VISION
HOUSE et al.

No. RG04-169835

ORDER DECLARING JOSEPH L.

WILLIAMS TO BE A VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT PURSUANT TO C.C.P.
391 et seq.

The Order to Show Cause Why Joseph L. Williams ("Williams") Should Not Be
Declared a Vexatious Litigant Pursuant to C.C.P. 391 et seq. came on regularly for
hearing on March 12, 2007, in Department 31 of this Court, the Honorable Frank Roesch
presiding. On March 12, 2007, the Court issued an Order granting the Court's motion to
declare Williams a vexatious litigant under C.C.P. 391, which states the appearances at
the hearing. That Order also stated that the Court would issue a subsequent order
describing the basis of its determination and the terms thereof. This is that order.
A.

Background

According to the Court's docket, the list of cases filed or subsequently maintained
by Williams in propria persona since 2000 includes the following: (1) Williams v.

Bobadilla, HG06-273171; (2) Williams v. Vann, HGOS-198134; (3) Williams v. Hall,

2

'

HG05-195512; (4) Williams v. Kyle, HG05-239923; (5) Williams v. Reese, HG04173023; (6) Williams v. Estate ofJoseph J. Studnek, HG06-270054; (7) Williams v.

Shaker, HG06-284318; (8) Williams v. Henderson, HG06-270494; (9) Williams v. Hall,

HG05-219869; (10) Williams v. Teasley, HG05-239024; (11) Williams v. Estate ofJoseph
J. Studnek, HG06-271253; (12) Williams v. Lanesse, HG06-273173; and (13) Global

Missions Unlimited v. Bishop ofFaith Noble Vision House, RG04-169835.

B.

Code of Civil Procedure section 39l(b)(2)

Pursuant to C.C.P. 391(b)(2), a vexatious litigant includes a person who, "[a]fter

a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or
attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination
against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined
or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law,
determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or
defendants as to whom the litigation was fmally determined."
1.

Bobadilla v. Williams

In Bobadilla v. Williams, VG04-164659, a jtidgment was entered against Williams

pursuant to a final award of the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Labor Code section
98.2(e) on June 17, 2004. On April II, 2006, Williams filed an ex parte application to
stay execution of the judgment pending a hearing on his motion to vacate or set aside the
judgment on the purported basis that he lacked notice of the hearing with the Labor
Commission or of the award and resulting judgment. The Court set a hearing on the

'

'

motion to vacate or set aside the judgment for May 12, 2006, which was subsequently
continued to June 19, 2006, and then to July 24, 2006. In connection with each
continuance, the Court permitted the parties to file additional papers so the Court could
thoroughly consider the evidence bearing on the question of notice. On July 24, 2006, the
Court issued an order denying the motion, finding that Williams had notice of the Labor
Commissioner proceedings and the Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner
and failed timely to appeal it.
On August 2, 2006, Williams filed a motion for reconsideration of that Order. In
an Order issued on September 5, 2006, the Court denied the motion on various grounds,
including that ( 1) the Court could not entertain a motion for reconsideration where
judgment had already been entered; (2) there was no proof of service filed in connection
with the motion; (3) Williams did not present any facts he could not have previously
submitted; and (4) the motion addressed the merits of the underlying Labor Commissioner
proceeding rather than the issue of notice.
On October 4, 2006, Williams filed with this Court a Petition for Alternative Writ
of Mandate with respect to the Court's Order of July 24, 2006. The Court denied the
petition on October 23, 2006, finding that the "writ" was in essence a second motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Order of July 24, 2006, and that it was denied for the same
reasons listed in the Court's Order of September 5, 2006. The Court denied the writ on
the further basis that it was not timely filed and that it did not include a proof of service.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

'
'

On January 8, 2007, Williams filed with this Court a "Petition for Writ of
Mandamus. " On January 24, 2007, the Court denied the petition, stating that it was "in
essence a third motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 24, 2006 Order," and that it
was "denied for the reasons set forth in the Court's September 5, 2006 Order," and also
referring to the Order of October 23, 2006. The "Petition" was further denied for failure
to file it at least 16 court days before the date set for hearing in violation of C.C.P.
1005(b).
The Court fmds that the above conduct constitutes repeated attempts to relitigate
the matters determined against Williams in the Labor Commissioner proceedings and in
the fmaljudgment against him in the Bobadilla action on June 17, 2004. The Court fmds
that this conduct falls within the language of section 391(b)(2) and provides a sufficient
basis for declaring Williams to be a vexatious litigant under section 391.

2.

Williams v. Bobadilla and Williams v. Shaker

On June 5, 2006, while his motion to vacate thejudgment in Bobadilla v.

was pending, Williams filed

Williams v. Bobadilla,

Williams

HG06-273171, a lawsuit against

Maria Bobadilla and her counsel seeking to hold them liable under RICO and other
theories for obtaining ajudgment against him in the Bobadilla case. Williams
subsequently dismissed Bobadilla's counsel from that lawsuit and filed a new action,

Williams v. Shaker,

HG06-284318, on August 16, 2006, asserting similar claims against

them. As discussed above, the Court dismissed both of these actions on October 6, 2006,
and November 9, 2006, pursuant to special motions to strike the complaint under C. C.P.

 425.16. The defendants in both cases contended in their motion papers that the suits
were retaliatory attempts by Williams to relitigate matters litigated against him in the

Bobadilla v. Williams lawsuit.

On January 17, 2007, the Court granted motions for attorneys' fees against
Williams pursuant to C.C.P. 425.16 in Williams v. Shaker and Williams v. Bobadilla.
Williams filed motions for reconsideration of both orders, which were denied on March 1,
2007.
The Court fmds that Williams' conduct in connection with Williams v. Bobadilla,
HG06-273171 and Williams v. Shaker, HG06-284318, were attempts to relitigate matters
fmally determined against him in Bobadilla v. Williams, VG04-164659. The Court fmds
that such conduct falls within the language of section 391(b)(2) and provides a sufficient
basis for declaring Williams a vexatious litigant under section 391.
3.

Williams v. Estate ofJoseph J. Studnek

In this case, filed on May 23, 2006, Williams sought to recover damages against
individuals for conduct that he alleged assisted or enabled a defendant in another of
Williams's lawsuits, Charles Hall, to successfully vacate a default and default judgment
against him in Williams v. Hall, HG05-195512, on August 23, 2005. On September 27,
2006, the Court sustained a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint with 10 days' leave
to amend. On February 8, 2007, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice after it was
demonstrated that Williams did not file an amended complaint within the required period.
Williams has not filed an appeal.

The Court finds that Williams' filing and maintenance of Williams v. Estate of

Joseph J. Studnek, HG06-271253, was an attempt to relitigate the issues determined in the
context of Hall's motion to set aside the default and default judgment. The Court finds
that this conduct falls within the language of section 391(b)(2) and provides a sufficient
basis for declaring Williams to be a vexatious litigant under section 391.
4.

Williams v. Henderson

Williams has filed two actions in propria persona against a sitting judge of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, the Hon. Thelton E. Henderson, and
other defendants. In Case No. HG06-270494, filed in this Court on May 18, 2006,
Williams sued Judge Henderson and two other public employees for (among other things)

libel, slander, violations of RICO and civil rights laws based on the asserted filing of
"false documents" in the U.S. District Court. This lawsuit was removed to federal court
and dismissed with prejudice on October 30, 2006.
On September 7, 2006, the U.S. District Court also dismissed with prejudice a
similar lawsuit filed by Williams in propria persona on May 10, 2006, Williams v.

Henderson, Case No. CV 03116 (N.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that the above lawsuits were attempts to relitigate issues or matters
finally determined against him in previous matters in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Such conduct falls within the language of section
391(b)(2) and provides a sufficient basis for declaring Williams a vexatious litigant under
section 391.

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

C.

CJBNS.ORG

Code of Civil Procedure section 39l(b)(3)

Pursuant to C.C.P. 39l (b)(3), a vexatious litigant includes a person who, "[i]n
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." Based on the record in
the cases discussed above, the Court finds that Williams has engaged in the following
conduct that falls within the language of section 39l{b)(3):
1.

Filing proofs of service with the Court attesting to service of

summonses and complaints, motion papers, and/or other documents filed with the Court,
which are later determined to be false, possibly falsified and/or called into question by the
opposing parties. (See, e.g., Williams v. Hall, HG05-195512, Declaration of Charles
Matthew Hall, 3-5, attached as Exhibit D to Declaration of N. Maxwell Njelita, filed
July 13, 2005; Williams v. Bobadilla, HG06-273171, Declaration of Maria Bobadilla, 4,
filed September 7, 2006, and Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Untimely and Unserved
Opposition, page 1, filed October 2, 2006; Williams v. Shaker, HG06-284318,
Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Untimely and Unserved Opposition, page 1, filed
October 2, 2006.)
2.

Seeking entry of default against individuals on the basis that the

summons and complaint were served on them and no response was timely filed, despite
evidence indicating that that such individuals were not served with the summons and
complaint or that such service was defective. (See, e.g., Williams v. Hall, HG05-195512,

Declaration of Charles Matthew Hall, 3-5, attached as Exhibit D to Declaration of N.

Maxwell Njelita, filed July 13, 2005; Williams v. Bobadilla, HG06-273171, Declaration
of Maria Bobadilla, 4, filed September 7, 2006; Williams v. Hall, HG05-219869, proofs
of service filed on February 14, 2005, February 18, 2005, and July 21, 2005; Williams v.

Teasley, HG05-239024, proofs of service filed November 21, 2005; Williams v. Vann,
HG05-198134, Declaration of Keith Vann filed on February 26, 2007; Williams v. Reese,
HG04-173023, Declaration of Keith Vann filed February 26, 2007 and Declaration of
Sean Reese filed on February 27, 2007; Williams v. Estate ofJoseph J. Studnek, HG06270054, Declaration of Defendant Keith Vann filed on February 26, 2007.)
For example, in Williams v. Hall, HG05-195512, Williams obtained an entry of
default against Defendant Hall on March 17, 2005 on the basis of proofs of service filed
with the Court on February 14, 2005 and February 18, 2005, stating that the summons and
complaint were served on Hall by mail and acknowledgment of receipt, despite the fact
that Williams failed to attach the signed acknowledgment or include any other evidence
that the acknowledgment was signed.1 (See Orders of August 23, 2005.) He then
opposed the motion to vacate the entry of default and default judgment by asserting that
the papers were personally served on Hall, but that the Court "lost" this proof of service
while nevertheless entering the default and default judgment based on it. The Court

1 Williams used this same tactic in Williams v. Teasley, HG05-239024, and the
Court vacated the default and default judgment on February 1, 2007.

found that such assertions were contradicted by the evidence and not credible. (/d.; see

also Declaration of Charles Matthew Hall, 3-5, filed July 13, 2005.)
In that same action, Williams also filed a proof of service on May 17, 2005,
purportedly signed by Craig Wilson of American Legal Support Services, Inc. ("ALSSI")
on May 6, 2005, to the effect that Mr. Wilson had personally served Hall with the
summons and an Order of Examination. Hall's attorney filed a declaration stating that the
address listed for ALSSI on the proof of service is not the business address of the
company, and that he attempted to contact Mr. Wilson or someone else at ALSSI at the
phone number listed on the proof of service and no one ever answered the phone.
(Further Declaration ofN. MaxellNjelita, 6, filed August 17, 2005.)
The Court notes that Williams has obtained entries of default against defendants in
other cases based on similar proofs of service purportedly signed by Craig Wilson of
ALSSI. (See proof of service filed July 21, 2005, as to Defendant Brian McLaughlin in

Williams v. Hall, HG05-219869; Williams v. Vann, HG05-198134, proof of service filed

as to Defendant Keith Vann on July 21, 2005.)
As another example, in Williams v. Vann, HGOS-198134, Defendant Keith Vann
filed a Declaration on February 26, 2007, attesting that he never received a summons or
complaint from Williams by mail or otherwise, despite proofs of service filed by Williams
on February 18, 2005, and July 21, 2005, attesting to service. The proof of service filed
on February 18, 2005, attested to proof of service by "mail and acknowledgment of
receipt of service," but no completedNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt was

10

attached as required so the default was rejected on May 11,

filed on July 21,

2005. The proof of service

2005 is purportedly signed by Craig Wilson at ALSSI.

As another example, in

Williams v. Reese, HG04-173023,

Defendant Keith Vann filed a signed Declaration on February 26,

filed August

31, 2004,

2007, attesting that he

never received a summons or the original or amended complaint in that action, either by
mail or otherwise, despite proofs of service Williams filed in that case on June
attesting to personal service on Mr. Vann on May 2,

6, 2006,

2006. The proof of service is

purportedly signed by a "Rick Pledger," but no telephone number is listed for Mr. Pledger
as required on the proof of service. 2 In that same action, Defendant Sean Reese filed a
signed Declaration on February 27,

2007, attesting that he never received a summons or

the original or amended complaint in that action, either by mail or otherwise, despite
proofs of service Williams filed in that case on September
attesting to service. On March 1,

Reese on February 24,

13, 2004 and May 16, 2006,

2006, the Court set aside the default entered against

2006, based on the 9/13/04 proof of service, "due to improper

service."

In

on August

Williams v. Lanesse, HG06-273173, Williams filed a similar proof of service

7, 2006, purportedly signed by "Rick Pledger" on June 30, 2006, not listing

any telephone number. Significantly, the signature on that proof of service is

dramatically different from that on the proof of service in
September

Williams v. Reese.

On

8, 2006, Williams also filed a "Diligence Report Summons and Complaint"

purportedly signed by "Rick Pledger" that contains a signature markedly different from
the signatures on both of the other two documents purportedly signed by the same person.
On January 11,

2007, the Court declined to enter a judgment for Williams at a "prove-up"

hearing after the entry of defaults against the defendants, ordering Williams to produce
Rick Pledger to testify as to service. Williams has not done so.
11

3.

Filing frivolous lawsuits against individuals, likely for purposes of

harassment. (See, e. g. , Williams v. Bobadilla, HG06-273171, Williams v. Shaker, HG06284318, and Williams v. Henderson, HG06-270494, discussed above.)
4.

Filing unmeritorious and/or frivolous motions or other papers,

including motions for reconsideration and oppositions to meritorious motions. (See, e.g. ,
Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment in Williams v. Hall,
HG05-195512, filed August 15, 2005; Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default in

Williams v. Bobadilla, HG06-273171, filed September 26, 2006; Bobadilla v. Williams,

VG04-164859, Motion for Reconsideration filed August 2, 2006, "Petition for Alternative
Writ of Mandate" filed October 4, 2006, and "Petition for Writ of Mandamus" filed
January 8, 2007; Williams v. Shaker, HG06-284318, Opposition to Motion to Strike filed
September 25, 2006, opposition to motion for attorneys' fees filed January 8, 2007, and
motion for reconsideration filed January 31, 2007; Williams v. Bobadilla, HG06-273171,
Opposition to Motion to Strike filed October 24, 2006, opposition to motion for
attorneys' fees filed January 8, 2007, and motion for reconsideration filed January 31,
2007; Opposition to Demurrer in Williams v. Estate ofJoseph J. Studnek, HG06-271253,
filed July 12, 2006.)
5.

Filing motions without serving the papers on the opposing parties or

counsel. (See, e.g., Bobadilla v. Williams, VG04-164859, Motion for Reconsideration

filed August 2, 2006 and "Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate" filed October 4,
2006; Global Missions Unlimited v. Bishop ofFaith Vision Noble House, RG04-169835,

12

Orders of 9/19/06 and 9/2 0/06 ; Williams

v.

Bobadilla, HG 06-2 73171 , Defendant's Reply

to Plaintiffs Untimely and Unserved Opposition, page 1, filed October 2 , 2 006; Williams
v.

Shaker, HG 06-28 4318, Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Untimely and Unserved

Opposition, page 1, filed October 2, 2 006.)

6.

Filing motions without providing proper service and /or notice under

the Code of Civil Procedure. (See, e.g., Williams v. Hall, HGOS-195512, Order of June 9,
2 006; Bobadilla v. Williams, VG04-164659, Orders of September 5, 2 006, October 23,
2 006, and January 2 4, 2 007.)
The Court fmds that the above conduct by Williams while acting in propria
persona falls within the language of C. C.P. 39l(b)(3), and constitutes a sufficient basis
for declaring Williams a vexatious litigant under section 391 .
C.

PREFILING ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Joseph L.
Williams is a vexatious litigant pursuant to C.C.P. 391. The Court will conform and
enter a "Prefiling Order- Vexatious Litigant," on Judicial Council form MC-700, in each
case listed in the caption above. As set forth in C. C.P. 391.7 , the order shall prohibit
Williams from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona
without first obtaining leave the presiding judge of the Superior Court for the County of
Alameda. Disobedience of the order may be punished as a contempt of court.

13

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE

CJBNS.ORG

Pursuant to C.C.P. 391.1, in any litigation pending in any court of this state, at
any time until fmal judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon notice and
hearing, for an order requiring Williams to furnish security.

Dated

1.....,!
-+- r; T

_
-_

Frank Roesch
Judge of the Superior Court

14