Legal Opinion
Flores v. Georgeson
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 10, 2011No. F059173PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DETJEN, J.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing an action pursuant to the vexatious litigant statutes. We hold that a prefiling order, issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, subdivision (a), does not *884require a vexatious litigant who is represented by counsel to obtain permission from the presiding judge to present litigation for filing. Accordingly, we reverse.
Facts and Procedural History
In 2008 appellant, Joe Flores, was declared to be a vexatious litigant and subject to a prefiling order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, subdivision (a). (All…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Forrest v. Department of CorporationsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- In Re Liang-Houh ShiehCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Lincoln v. DidakCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Camerado Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kinney v. Clark, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Cunningham v. Coombs CA1/2California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Ass'n, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2017
- Kinney v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.