Colombo

Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs

Good Law
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 403·35 Cal. App. 5th 407
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 2019G055823California4,318 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Moore, J.

*405 *410 A vexatious litigant's request to sue his attorneys for legal malpractice was denied by the superior court, as was his motion for reconsideration of that request. This court denied extraordinary relief. Undaunted, the vexatious litigant asked a different presiding judge to give him leave to file the identical legal malpractice complaint. This time, his request was granted and the current action was filed. The trial court granted a defense motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the action.

As a matter of both substantive legal doctrine and fundamental fairness, litigants are only entitled to one bite at the apple. But this vexatious litigant refuses to stop biting. We conclude the doctrine of res judicata precludes a litigant from filing successive prefiling requests, and therefore, we affirm the judgment.

*411 I

FACTS

A. The Homeowner's Association Lawsuit

This case has a rather tortured history involving several related matters. Detailed summaries of the facts are included in our previous opinions. (See, e.g., Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association v. Colombo et al. (Mar. 24, 2008, G038603) [nonpub. opn.], Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association v. Colombo…

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.