Roston

Roston v. Edwards

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 3d 842·179 Cal. Rptr. 830·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1174
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 1982Docket Nos. 25468, 25469California1,388 words

Opinion

Opinion

The common legal question presented in both of the appeals in these two civil actions, which have been consolidated on the court’s own motion, is whether the term “litigation” as defined in the vexatious litigants statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (a)) includes civil actions or proceedings in federal courts located in California as well as civil actions or proceedings in California state courts. We conclude that it does not.

Attorney Martin F. Roston caused two separate civil actions to be commenced in Orange County Superior Court early in October 1980. In the first action, Roston v. Edwards (hereafter Edwards), the complaint stated that Roston was the plaintiff and was representing himself in propria persona. In the second action, Roston Institute, Inc. v. Meher Montessori School et al. (hereafter Montessori Schools), filed three days later on October 6, the complaint stated that the plaintiff was Roston Institute, Inc., a corporation whose sole shareholders, directors and officers were Roston and his wife, Qudsia.

Defendants in both actions moved for orders requiring plaintiffs to furnish security as vexatious litigants pursuant to section 391 et seq. These two…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.