The California Supreme Court yesterday agreed to resolve a conflict between Court of Appeal panels as to whether a trial judge may look beyond the naked allegations of a complaint in determining whether a vexatious litigant should be required to post security for the defendant�s costs.
Six members of the court, Justice Carlos Moreno being the lone holdout, voted to grant review in Moran v. Murtaugh, Miller, Meyer & Nelson, LLP (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 323. The court took the action at its weekly conference in San Francisco.In Moran, the Fourth District�s Div. Three held that that Orange Superior Court Judge William M. Monroe did not abuse his discretion in ordering the plaintiff to post security for the costs to be incurred by the law firm that had employed him as a paralegal. Murphy was either fired or resigned after the firm learned he was a convicted felon.
In his complaint, Gene Moran claimed the firm had violated the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act by not providing him with copies of the records it had accessed in discovering his past convictions, which included two thefts and a burglary. He also claimed the firm had discriminated against him in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and had subjected him to the negligent infliction of emotional distress.
After being served with the complaint, the firm researched Moran�s past and discovered he had filed numerous unsuccessful lawsuits. It moved to declare him a vexatious litigant and require that he post security for costs.
After an evidentiary hearing, Monroe concluded that Moran was a vexatious litigant with no reasonable probability of prevailing on his claims and required him to post security. When he failed to do so, his suit was dismissed under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 391.4.
Details here from Kenneth Ofgang of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.