Cono

discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate] court need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 25, 2021, Cono filed a 222-page civil complaint against “Adam Mazza, et al.,” apparently in response to the termination of a co-working lease agreement. On June 16, 2021, the trial court issued an order to show cause why it should not find Cono to be a vexatious litigant.

1All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless stated otherwise.

2 The record on appeal only contains the first page of the court’s June 16, 2021 order, which states that “[s]ince December 6, 2019, Leo Cono has initiated, in propria persona, twelve new litigations in Los Angeles Superior Court.” The August 5, 2021 minute order indicates that no court reporter was present at the hearing. The minute order stated, in relevant part: “In a minute order dated June 16, 2021 filed in the above case, this court…