Wolfgram

Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 139·53 Cal. App. 2d 43·53 Cal. App. 4th 43·61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 694·97 Daily Journal DAR 2156
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1997C022370California7,086 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

The trial court declared plaintiff John E. Wolfgram a vexatious litigant. He failed to post the required security and his action was dismissed. He and a purported coplaintiff, Attorney Kurt M. Simmons, appeal. In the published portion of the opinion we reject certain novel constitutional challenges to the vexatious litigant statute. We shall affirm.

Wolfgram, who styles himself “philosopher and blacklisted attorney,” sued Wells Fargo Bank and others (Wells Fargo), alleging malicious prosecution and seeking to quiet title to certain realty. Wells Fargo moved to declare Wolfgram a vexatious litigant. The motion was supported by evidence tending to show lack of merit in this suit and by copies of court documents which established Wolfgram filed at least five unsuccessful suits against judges and other officials, alleging misdeeds such as election fraud and blacklisting. Wolfgram opposed the motion in part by urging suits against the government were privileged.

The court (Halpin, J.) granted the motion and ordered Wolfgram to post $15,000 as security, and to obtain permission before filing new lawsuits in propria persona. Wolfgram did not post security and Wells Fargo moved…

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.