Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-21-2017 11:12 am
Case Number: CGC-06-450243
Filing Date: Jul-20-2017 11:11
Filed by: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Image: 05954934
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
BURTON H WOLFE VS. SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK et al
001005954934
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.MC-703
[ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): anaes
Burton H. Wolfe~ LED
“AOI MocKinsbred Drive co SUPE tOR Coy
3496-2695 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ont each, PL 3
TELEPHONE NO: C561) bOG-G2ZUF FAX NO. :
chant nopness: bcuoe Ihe Cop) PAS. C0m JUL 20. 2017
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Ji, peo peia— eclond-
[_] COURT OF APPEAL, APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sén Frénecl Ce
streET aporess: 2 Me Alles ter Shreet
main appress: YOO Wc Alli g fer 3 ree
omvanpz cove: Sn [> rencs $Co 5 cA G4 loge 45TH
prancuname: CV, b Divinon
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:
Wolfe, me pre fer
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO VACATE PREFILING case NUMER
ORDER AND REMOVE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FROM
JUDICIAL COUNCIL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST CEC-U6- {6024 3
Important, please read: This application must be filed in the court that entered the prefiling order, either in the action in which the
prefiling order was entered or in conjunction with a request to the presiding justice or presiding judge to file new litigation under
Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. If you have made an application to vacate a prefiling order that was denied, you may not
make another application to vacate in any California court until at least 12 months after the denial.
4. [have been determined to be a vexatious litigant under the California Code of Civil Procedure section 391. This application
requests that the court vacate its prefiling order and order my name removed from the statewide vexatious litigant list.
2. The prefiling order or orders were issued in the following case or cases (list all):
Court: Skn Franc'seo Lomty Gu perioc lout Court: $4, Eneihio Coynty Sepecier Court
Case Name: Wolfe v San Renew Froud Bunk , etal. Case Name: |alylfe v. Sim Fe une tho Fed Bank, etal.
Case Number: CGC —O5 = 441164 Case Number: CEC ~ 06—-450243
Date prefiling order entered: May 30, 2006 Date prefiling order entered: 4 o G
The ovdec is etteched hereusth,
( Continued on Attachment (form MC-025).
L asd not Cele any ltyabons ¢F ler May 30, 200k
3. | request that the prefiling order be vacated under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.8. (Describe below the material change in
the facts on which the order was granted and how the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order.)
£ neved to Flocidg jn Sune 2008. TF havelten Kperminet £25 dent Flees da
Conee tren, ond Dinky te reside Florida Gar breve spo P My hee.
TL never Clad @ bby aha vex or harass Anzhody, These tw Cases concerns
CPF OF food Garcon Pes, They were por tred om fe peice Mthwet hy ee
tn (te fee been layers, and merdund D. Ay Ged Abby Geree| Lorctd nop neh Atel
fe Ye wld Hae State legriletucr, Dan Sy years ad. xm nef rw Frak
yas ethics fe faghodg freee crockes, “Th id bean ane eer of- Kirdnetr
and wid Seve tee bubs ot seth EF pece Freed from the Ontos dab
Ove Lefews (i tiynt” deck LD rever deferred, ol IT donot hare to wk $— fo
my ded ble be hive tremor Prom the shtewnle “verchows Liki Shak leat,
(0 Continued on Attachment (form MC-025).
Page 1 of 2
Form Appeoved or ee APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO VACATE PREFILING Code of Givi Procedure, § 391.8
W703 pv Sonar 20% ORDER AND REMOVE PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER FROM wnemcourcager
JUDICIAL COUNCIL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LISTMC-703
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: ‘CASE NUMBER:
rh He polbe m Prpne pecSone— CE6C- Og - ¥ S024 8
4. [yf | have not made an application for an order to vacate a prefiling order in the last 12 months.
5. On Attachment (form MC-025) is a list of every case filed in the last five years in which I've been a plaintiff, cross-complainant, or
defendant, the approximate number of motions | filed in each case, and the number of requests for new litigation that | have filed.
(Include case name, case number, court in which filed, and date filed.)
There we no Wer Chres TL have not filed any Layebens O~ the —
Corts of Ctltunca smnce 200g.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
17 2, -Wel .
Lek ggg 2 Bicterdhalitedie— > [Book bir ye —
MC-703 [Rev. January 1, 2014] APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO VACATE PREFILING Page 2 of 2
ORDER AND REMOVE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FROM
JUDICIAL COUNCIL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST
seatitoDCT-24-2806 13:39 S F SUPERIOR COURT 415 551 3687 P.O
1 | JOHN R. HURLEY (Bar No. 203641)
DLA PIPER GRAY CARY US LLP
153 Townsend Street
Francisco,
oo ND A HW & YN
nN
3) FOR A PRE-FILING INJUNCTION
PROHIBITING NEW LITIGATION.
DL. 1OCT-24-2006 13:39 S F SUPERIOR COURT 415 551 :36987 P.26
oe YN DOD Hh B® wD DY H
~
o
YN
Din PIPER RUD!
Gaay Cary USLLP
‘Attouates At van
On May 16, 2006, Defendant America’s Second Harvest’s Motion for an Order: 1)
Declaring Plaintiff to be a Vexatious Litigant; 2) Requiring Plaintiff to Post Security and 3) for a
Pre-Filing lojunction came on for hearing before this Court. On May 15, 2006, the Court made
the following tentative ruling available:
In light of Wolfe Z [Wolfe v. San Francisco Food Bank et al., San
acces
woe Wi
onda 16,2000 pf sce nape Son Harvest (“AEP speared ong ty
of record and submitted the matter based upon the papers. Burton H. Wolfe, plaintiff in propria
persona, did not appear.
‘The Court has reviewed and considered the pleadings and the papers filed by the parties in
this action and the papers and argument present by the parties in the Wolfe | action.
The Court finds that Wolfe is a vexatious litigant es defined by Code of Civil Procedure §
391. On September 8, 2003, Wolfe was found to bo a vexatious litigant in proceedings captioned
Wolfe v. Vietnamese Community Center, San Francisco Superior Coun case no. CGC 03-417193.
‘The hasis of the ruling in that case was that, in the prior seven years, Wolfe had commenced,
prosecuted or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations that had been finally
determined adversely to him. Each of the eight cases underlying the Court's order in Wolfe v.
Vietnamese Community Center were commenced, prosocuted, or maintained within the seven
years immediately prior the filing of AZH’s motion in this action. The order in Wolfe v.
Vietnamese Community Center is therefore conclusive on Wolfe's status as a vexatious litigant.
See Stolz v. Bank of America, 15 Cal. App Ath 217 (1993). .
Asa separate basis for this ruling that Wolfe is a vexatious litigant, the Court finds that
Wolfe has repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducted
unnecessary discovery, or engaged in other tactics that were frivolous or solely intended to cause
unnecessary delay in this action. Therefore, the Court finds that Mr. Burton Wolfe is a “vexatious
| titigant” under Code of Civil Procedure § 391(0)(3).
SFGIZ484.1 2“OCT-24-2085 13:39 S F SUPERIOR COURT 415 551 3687 P.a?
we mY A HPF we —
oe
= oO
Defendant A2H has presented substantial, unrebutted argument and evidence that there is
not a reasonable probability that Wolfe will prevail against A2H. In addition to deficiencies in
the substance of Wolfe's underlying claims, Wolfe has not presented argument or evidence to
show that A2H is or should be vicariously liable for the acts of the Sen Francisco Food Bank, and
the declarations in the record rebut the assertion of vicarious liability.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391.1, Defendant A2H is entitled to security for its
reasonable expenses, including attomey's fees. The Court has cansidered the fee estimate
provided by AZH, the fact that Wolfe is proceeding in forma paxperis, the burden imposed by
Plaintiff Wolfe’s tactics to date, and the burden that would be imposed if such tactics were to
continue. In consideration of these factors, the court finds that A2H is entitled to security in the
amount of S_{ad fre ©.
Based on Wolfe's conduct in filings numerous, overlong, burdensome, and non-
meritorious papers in this action and in the Wolfe / action, the Court finds that no court or adverse
party should be subjected to Wolfe's meritless litigation and burdensome filings.
In opposition to A2H’s motion, Wolfe atatcks the constitutionality of California's
vexatious litigant statute on various grounds under the California Constitution and United States
Constitution, and also asserts that the statute is preempted by federal law. The statute has
previously withstood these same constitutional attacks and preemption arguments, and the Court
sees no merit in Wolfs’s arguments. See Wolfe v. George, 385 P.Supp.2d 1004 (N.D.Cal. 2005);
Wolferam v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal-App.4th 43, 60-61 (1997); Taliafero v. Hoogs, 236
Cal.App-2d 521 (1965).
THEREFORE IT !§ HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The motion of Defendant A2H is GRANTED;
2. The motions to strike of Plaintiff Wolfe are DENIED;
3. Plaintiff Wolfe is hereby declared to be a vexatious litigant with in the meaning of
Code of Civil Procedure § 391;
4. Plaintiff Wolfe shall post a bond with the Court to furnish security for the benefit
. a.
of Defendant A2H in the amount of $ 64, ote 3
SPUIZH4HL 3._
wo nu Dw F&F WN
S F SUPERIOR COURT 415 551 3687 P.@8
~ -
5. Plaintiff Wolfe shell furnish said security within 10 days of notice of entry of this
order. If said scourity is not furnished within the specified time, all claims against
Defendant A2H shall be dismissed with prejudice;
6. Plaintiff Wolfe is prohibited from fit ¢ ny new litigation in the courts of this
ent propria persia with ft obtacing eave of tho presiding judge of the .
court where the litigation is proposed to_be fled.
7 ‘The clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this Onder to the Judicial Council.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-21-2017 11:12 am Case Number: CGC-06-450243 Filing Date: Jul-20-2017 11:11 Filed by: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Image: 05954934 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER BURTON H WOLFE VS. SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK et al 001005954934 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.MC-703 [ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): anaes Burton H. Wolfe~ LED “AOI MocKinsbred Drive co SUPE tOR Coy 3496-2695 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ont each, PL 3 TELEPHONE NO: C561) bOG-G2ZUF FAX NO. : chant nopness: bcuoe Ihe Cop) PAS. C0m JUL 20. 2017 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Ji, peo peia— eclond- [_] COURT OF APPEAL, APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sén Frénecl Ce streET aporess: 2 Me Alles ter Shreet main appress: YOO Wc Alli g fer 3 ree omvanpz cove: Sn [> rencs $Co 5 cA G4 loge 45TH prancuname: CV, b Divinon PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Wolfe, me pre fer APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO VACATE PREFILING case NUMER ORDER AND REMOVE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FROM JUDICIAL COUNCIL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST CEC-U6- {6024 3 Important, please read: This application must be filed in the court that entered the prefiling order, either in the action in which the prefiling order was entered or in conjunction with a request to the presiding justice or presiding judge to file new litigation under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. If you have made an application to vacate a prefiling order that was denied, you may not make another application to vacate in any California court until at least 12 months after the denial. 4. [have been determined to be a vexatious litigant under the California Code of Civil Procedure section 391. This application requests that the court vacate its prefiling order and order my name removed from the statewide vexatious litigant list. 2. The prefiling order or orders were issued in the following case or cases (list all): Court: Skn Franc'seo Lomty Gu perioc lout Court: $4, Eneihio Coynty Sepecier Court Case Name: Wolfe v San Renew Froud Bunk , etal. Case Name: |alylfe v. Sim Fe une tho Fed Bank, etal. Case Number: CGC —O5 = 441164 Case Number: CEC ~ 06—-450243 Date prefiling order entered: May 30, 2006 Date prefiling order entered: 4 o G The ovdec is etteched hereusth, ( Continued on Attachment (form MC-025). L asd not Cele any ltyabons ¢F ler May 30, 200k 3. | request that the prefiling order be vacated under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.8. (Describe below the material change in the facts on which the order was granted and how the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order.) £ neved to Flocidg jn Sune 2008. TF havelten Kperminet £25 dent Flees da Conee tren, ond Dinky te reside Florida Gar breve spo P My hee. TL never Clad @ bby aha vex or harass Anzhody, These tw Cases concerns CPF OF food Garcon Pes, They were por tred om fe peice Mthwet hy ee tn (te fee been layers, and merdund D. Ay Ged Abby Geree| Lorctd nop neh Atel fe Ye wld Hae State legriletucr, Dan Sy years ad. xm nef rw Frak yas ethics fe faghodg freee crockes, “Th id bean ane eer of- Kirdnetr and wid Seve tee bubs ot seth EF pece Freed from the Ontos dab Ove Lefews (i tiynt” deck LD rever deferred, ol IT donot hare to wk $— fo my ded ble be hive tremor Prom the shtewnle “verchows Liki Shak leat, (0 Continued on Attachment (form MC-025). Page 1 of 2 Form Appeoved or ee APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO VACATE PREFILING Code of Givi Procedure, § 391.8 W703 pv Sonar 20% ORDER AND REMOVE PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER FROM wnemcourcager JUDICIAL COUNCIL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LISTMC-703 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: ‘CASE NUMBER: rh He polbe m Prpne pecSone— CE6C- Og - ¥ S024 8 4. [yf | have not made an application for an order to vacate a prefiling order in the last 12 months. 5. On Attachment (form MC-025) is a list of every case filed in the last five years in which I've been a plaintiff, cross-complainant, or defendant, the approximate number of motions | filed in each case, and the number of requests for new litigation that | have filed. (Include case name, case number, court in which filed, and date filed.) There we no Wer Chres TL have not filed any Layebens O~ the — Corts of Ctltunca smnce 200g. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 17 2, -Wel . Lek ggg 2 Bicterdhalitedie— > [Book bir ye — MC-703 [Rev. January 1, 2014] APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO VACATE PREFILING Page 2 of 2 ORDER AND REMOVE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER FROM JUDICIAL COUNCIL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST seatitoDCT-24-2806 13:39 S F SUPERIOR COURT 415 551 3687 P.O 1 | JOHN R. HURLEY (Bar No. 203641) DLA PIPER GRAY CARY US LLP 153 Townsend Street Francisco, oo ND A HW & YN nN 3) FOR A PRE-FILING INJUNCTION PROHIBITING NEW LITIGATION. DL. 1OCT-24-2006 13:39 S F SUPERIOR COURT 415 551 :36987 P.26 oe YN DOD Hh B® wD DY H ~ o YN Din PIPER RUD! Gaay Cary USLLP ‘Attouates At van On May 16, 2006, Defendant America’s Second Harvest’s Motion for an Order: 1) Declaring Plaintiff to be a Vexatious Litigant; 2) Requiring Plaintiff to Post Security and 3) for a Pre-Filing lojunction came on for hearing before this Court. On May 15, 2006, the Court made the following tentative ruling available: In light of Wolfe Z [Wolfe v. San Francisco Food Bank et al., San acces woe Wi onda 16,2000 pf sce nape Son Harvest (“AEP speared ong ty of record and submitted the matter based upon the papers. Burton H. Wolfe, plaintiff in propria persona, did not appear. ‘The Court has reviewed and considered the pleadings and the papers filed by the parties in this action and the papers and argument present by the parties in the Wolfe | action. The Court finds that Wolfe is a vexatious litigant es defined by Code of Civil Procedure § 391. On September 8, 2003, Wolfe was found to bo a vexatious litigant in proceedings captioned Wolfe v. Vietnamese Community Center, San Francisco Superior Coun case no. CGC 03-417193. ‘The hasis of the ruling in that case was that, in the prior seven years, Wolfe had commenced, prosecuted or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations that had been finally determined adversely to him. Each of the eight cases underlying the Court's order in Wolfe v. Vietnamese Community Center were commenced, prosocuted, or maintained within the seven years immediately prior the filing of AZH’s motion in this action. The order in Wolfe v. Vietnamese Community Center is therefore conclusive on Wolfe's status as a vexatious litigant. See Stolz v. Bank of America, 15 Cal. App Ath 217 (1993). . Asa separate basis for this ruling that Wolfe is a vexatious litigant, the Court finds that Wolfe has repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducted unnecessary discovery, or engaged in other tactics that were frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay in this action. Therefore, the Court finds that Mr. Burton Wolfe is a “vexatious | titigant” under Code of Civil Procedure § 391(0)(3). SFGIZ484.1 2“OCT-24-2085 13:39 S F SUPERIOR COURT 415 551 3687 P.a? we mY A HPF we — oe = oO Defendant A2H has presented substantial, unrebutted argument and evidence that there is not a reasonable probability that Wolfe will prevail against A2H. In addition to deficiencies in the substance of Wolfe's underlying claims, Wolfe has not presented argument or evidence to show that A2H is or should be vicariously liable for the acts of the Sen Francisco Food Bank, and the declarations in the record rebut the assertion of vicarious liability. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391.1, Defendant A2H is entitled to security for its reasonable expenses, including attomey's fees. The Court has cansidered the fee estimate provided by AZH, the fact that Wolfe is proceeding in forma paxperis, the burden imposed by Plaintiff Wolfe’s tactics to date, and the burden that would be imposed if such tactics were to continue. In consideration of these factors, the court finds that A2H is entitled to security in the amount of S_{ad fre ©. Based on Wolfe's conduct in filings numerous, overlong, burdensome, and non- meritorious papers in this action and in the Wolfe / action, the Court finds that no court or adverse party should be subjected to Wolfe's meritless litigation and burdensome filings. In opposition to A2H’s motion, Wolfe atatcks the constitutionality of California's vexatious litigant statute on various grounds under the California Constitution and United States Constitution, and also asserts that the statute is preempted by federal law. The statute has previously withstood these same constitutional attacks and preemption arguments, and the Court sees no merit in Wolfs’s arguments. See Wolfe v. George, 385 P.Supp.2d 1004 (N.D.Cal. 2005); Wolferam v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal-App.4th 43, 60-61 (1997); Taliafero v. Hoogs, 236 Cal.App-2d 521 (1965). THEREFORE IT !§ HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The motion of Defendant A2H is GRANTED; 2. The motions to strike of Plaintiff Wolfe are DENIED; 3. Plaintiff Wolfe is hereby declared to be a vexatious litigant with in the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 391; 4. Plaintiff Wolfe shall post a bond with the Court to furnish security for the benefit . a. of Defendant A2H in the amount of $ 64, ote 3 SPUIZH4HL 3._ wo nu Dw F&F WN S F SUPERIOR COURT 415 551 3687 P.@8 ~ - 5. Plaintiff Wolfe shell furnish said security within 10 days of notice of entry of this order. If said scourity is not furnished within the specified time, all claims against Defendant A2H shall be dismissed with prejudice; 6. Plaintiff Wolfe is prohibited from fit ¢ ny new litigation in the courts of this ent propria persia with ft obtacing eave of tho presiding judge of the . court where the litigation is proposed to_be fled. 7 ‘The clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this Onder to the Judicial Council.