Kempston

Kempston v. Clark CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 2014B248713California4,775 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Background1 In 2005, Kimberly Kempton and Charles G. Kinney purchased property in Silver Lake from Michele Clark. Kinney and Kempton soon began a spate of lawsuits against Clark, Clark’s real estate brokers, several neighbors, the neighbors’ children, and the City of Los Angeles. The litigation mainly concerned easements and fences that were in place when Kinney purchased the property. Ultimately, Kinney lost all of the lawsuits he filed. On October 27, 2008, at the request of Clark and her brokers, the superior court declared Kinney to be a vexatious litigant and ordered him to post a $20,000 bond because there is “not a reasonable probability he will prevail” in this lawsuit. Kinney dismissed himself “without prejudice” on November 7, 2008. The trial court signed a formal order declaring Kinney a vexatious litigant on November 19, 2008. Kinney continues to be Kempton’s attorney in all litigation. Following numerous unmeritorious appeals, this court declared Kinney to be a vexatious litigant in 2011. (See fn. 1, ante.) In May 2012, the trial court declared Kempton to be a vexatious litigant in this case. Kinney’s request to appeal Kempton’s vexatious litigant status was…

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.