Metropolitan News-Enterprise


Friday, October 5, 2018


Page 1


Court of Appeal:

Judge, in Declaring Party Vexatious Litigant, May Not Require Bond in Future Litigation


By a MetNews Staff Writer


The Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday that a judge, in declaring a party to be a vexatious litigant, has no power to require the posting of a bond before filing any future actions or motions.

Presiding Justice Nora Manella of Div. Four wrote the opinion, which was not certified for publication. The order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Diana Gould-Saltman declaring Tonja Van Roy to be a vexatious litigant, but modifies it by deleting the requirement that she post $10,000 as a condition of future litigation activity.

The opinion leaves intact the requirement that Van Roy receive permission from Department One before filing papers. The woman has repeatedly sought orders allowing her visitation rights with her grandson.

Manella pointed to Code of Civil Procedure §391.7(b) which says, with respect to a vexatious litigant:

“The presiding justice or presiding judge shall permit the filing of…[new] litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. The presiding justice or presiding judge may condition the filing of the litigation upon the furnishing of security for the benefit of the defendants….”

The jurist wrote:

“If and when appellant files her next motion, petition or action, the judge in Department 1 determining its merits may impose a bond. However, nothing in the statute permits the court making the vexatious litigant finding and entering the prefiling order to subject the litigant to a bond requirement in all future litigation.”

The case is Thomas R. v. Tonja V., B280834.


Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company