Stolz v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
Edward Stolz II appeals from an order dismissing his action against Bank of America because he failed to furnish security as required by the vexatious litigant statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 391 et seq.) He challenges the order (judgment of dismissal) on assorted grounds, none of which has merit.
In the published portion of the opinion 2 we hold that principles of collateral estoppel preclude Stolz from relitigating the final determination in an unrelated case that six prior cases prosecuted or maintained by him in propria persona meet the definition of a vexatious…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1962
- In-Home Supportive Services v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Imen v. GlassfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Johnson v. LewisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- San Remo Hotel L.P. v. San Francisco City & CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Garcia v. LaceyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- The San Remo Hotel L.P. v. San Francisco City And CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.