Decker

Decker v. Pulapkura CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 23, 2016C076771California4,064 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 8/23/16 Decker v. Pulapkura CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta) ----

ANDREW DECKER, C076771

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 178701)

v.

SOLOMON PULAPKURA,

Defendant and Respondent.

The trial court found plaintiff Andrew Decker to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(3)1 and ordered him to furnish security for the benefit of defendant Solomon Pulapkura pursuant to section 391.3. When Decker failed to furnish security as required, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing Decker’s complaint against Pulapkura pursuant to section 391.4. On appeal, Decker

Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil…

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.