In McFadden v. Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector, et al., the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 1 ordered an appeal from an order to strike and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissed. The appellant filed multiple lawsuits under different theories against a city and other governmental defendants arising out of the 2005 demolition of her house. She lost the first one on the merits, and the appellate court affirmed the result. The second was defeated on the pleadings, and the appellate court affirmed on res judicata grounds. The third lawsuit was dismissed on res judicata grounds. The plaintiff appealed the result, but abandoned the appeal. In the fourth case, the trial court issued tentative orders sustaining demurrers and granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, but did not enter a final ruling because the plaintiff had a pending bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy trustee allowed the city to pursue a motion deeming the plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The court granted the motion, based on the plaintiff repeatedly litigating the same matter in four cases. The court dismissed the action when the plaintiff failed to file a bond. The appellate court affirmed the vexatious litigant finding, but reversed because the trial court had not given the plaintiff a deadline to file the bond. On remand, the trial court struck the complaint sua sponte and granted judgment on the pleadings, on the ground that the action had no merit. The plaintiff appealed. When the appellate court issued an order to show cause concerning the appeal's merit, the plaintiff obtained counsel, and the court discharged the OSC. The attorney then withdrew, and the appellate court issued another OSC to show that the appeal had merit.
When a vexatious litigant files an action through counsel, and then becomes in pro per, Code of Civil Procedure section 391.3 permits a court to dismiss the action if it determines the action has no merit, and is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. The plaintiff failed to show this appeal had merit. She challenged her status as vexatious litigant, but that matter was resolved. She raised a new argument concerning the demolition of her house, but it was too late to assert that argument; she could have asserted it in her original case, and so cannot be permitted to do so in a later case. Finally, the plaintiff contended she did not file the action to harass the respondents. Whatever her intent, the effect of the repeated litigation was to harass the respondents, and that was the only possible purpose of the appeal.