AXJ.APP

Vexatious

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

HOMEOWNER, an individual,
Plaintiff, v. HARRY HANG WONG, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.

Case No.:

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, TO POST SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,450.00, AND FOR A PREFILING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND OPPOSITION TO DECLARATION OF STEVEN M. DAILEY

First Amended Complaint Filed: October 1, 2025
Date Filed: November 18, 2024
Hearing Date: August 12, 2025
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Place: Dept. D


Assigned for All Purposes to: Honorable Judger

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Homeowner (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, hereby opposes the motion filed by Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), Harry Hang Wong (“Wong”), and U.S. Bank Trust Company National Association (“USBT”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, require her to post security in the amount of $14,450.00, and issue a prefiling order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 391 et seq.

Plaintiff also opposes the Declaration of Steven M. Dailey submitted in support of Defendants’ motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’ motion in its entirety.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant lacks merit and should be denied. Plaintiff does not meet the statutory criteria for a vexatious litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b), nor does her conduct warrant such a designation under federal standards. Plaintiff’s claims in this action, related to the wrongful foreclosure of her property at 100 East Newby Avenue, San Gabriel, CA 91776, are pursued in good faith and supported by legitimate legal and factual bases.

Defendants’ motion is a tactical attempt to obstruct Plaintiff’s constitutional right to seek redress for grievances, including violations of her property rights and protections under bankruptcy law and California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights.

Defendants’ repeated misrepresentations, including in the Declaration of Steven M. Dailey, and their failure to disclose critical facts—such as Plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge—demonstrate bad faith.

Plaintiff, now 75 years old, has been subjected to ongoing harassment and defamation by Defendants, who have wrongfully pursued foreclosure despite her property being fully paid and discharged in bankruptcy.

Declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant would violate her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and unfairly restrict her access to the courts.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b), a vexatious litigant is defined as a person who, in propria persona, meets one of the following criteria:

  1. In the preceding seven years, has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained at least five litigations (other than in small claims court) that were finally determined adversely to them or remained pending for two years without trial or hearing.
  2. Repeatedly attempts to relitigate matters previously determined against them.
  3. Repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers.
  4. Engages in frivolous tactics solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

In federal courts, a vexatious litigant designation may be considered under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act) or the court’s inherent authority, but requires a clear pattern of frivolous or abusive litigation. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990). Any such order must be narrowly tailored to avoid unduly restricting court access. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014).

Defendants bear the burden of proving Plaintiff meets these criteria and that there is no reasonable probability she will prevail in this action. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.2.

III. ARGUMENTA. Plaintiff Does Not Meet the Statutory Criteria for a Vexatious Litigant.

Defendants have failed to provide evidence that Plaintiff satisfies any of the criteria under § 391(b):

  1. No Evidence of Five Unsuccessful Litigations: Defendants have not identified five or more lawsuits filed by Plaintiff in propria persona within the past seven years that were finally determined adversely to her or remained pending for two years without a hearing. Vague assertions about prior litigation are insufficient to meet this statutory requirement.
  2. No Repeated Relitigation of Determined Matters: Plaintiff’s current action involves distinct claims related to the wrongful foreclosure and eviction from her property. These claims are not attempts to relitigate previously decided issues but are based on new and ongoing violations by Defendants, including their disregard for Plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge on May 3, 2011, under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Plaintiff filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 27, 2008, which was converted to Chapter 7 in 2009. The discharge extinguished debts owed to Defendants, prohibiting further foreclosure attempts. See 11 U.S.C. § 727(b).
  3. No Pattern of Unmeritorious Filings: Plaintiff’s filings, including her complaint, are supported by factual allegations and legal theories, such as violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) and California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights. Defendants have not identified specific frivolous or harassing filings by Plaintiff.
  4. No Frivolous or Delaying Tactics: Plaintiff’s conduct in this litigation is focused on protecting her property rights. Defendants have not demonstrated specific instances of delay or harassment caused by Plaintiff.

B. Plaintiff’s Claims Have a Reasonable Probability of Success

Under § 391.2, a court may require security only if it finds no reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail. Plaintiff’s claims, including those for wrongful foreclosure, wrongful eviction, and RFDCPA violations, are supported by viable legal theories.

Plaintiff alleges that her property was fully paid and discharged in bankruptcy, yet Defendants pursued foreclosure without a valid promissory note or beneficiary status. These claims have not been adjudicated on their merits in prior cases, as Defendants have relied on res judicata or collateral estoppel to avoid substantive review.

Plaintiff’s evidence, including bankruptcy discharge documents, supports her position, and Defendants have not shown her claims lack merit.

C. Defendants’ Motion Relies on Misrepresentations and Extrinsic Evidence

Defendants’ motion is based on extrinsic evidence not subject to judicial notice under California Evidence Code §§ 450-452. For example, the Declaration of Steven M. Dailey, representing SPS, omits critical facts, such as Plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge, which prohibited foreclosure actions.

Defendants also misrepresent the history of Plaintiff’s case, potentially constituting fraud on the court. In a prior case (No. 21BBCV00979, Burbank), Defendants’ similar request for a $14,500 security bond was denied, a fact they failed to disclose. Such omissions undermine the credibility of their motion.

D. Declaring Plaintiff Vexatious Would Violate Her Due Process Rights

A vexatious litigant designation is an extraordinary remedy that restricts access to the courts, a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062. Defendants have not shown a pattern of abusive litigation sufficient to justify this measure. Plaintiff, a 75-year-old individual acting in propria persona, has pursued her claims in good faith to protect her property and reputation from Defendants’ ongoing harassment, defamation, and slander.

Imposing a vexatious litigant order would unfairly prejudice her ability to seek redress.

E. Defendants’ Motion Is a Tactical Maneuver

Defendants’ motion seeks to derail Plaintiff’s legitimate claims by shifting focus from the merits of the foreclosure dispute. Their request for a $14,450 security bond and a prefiling order is an attempt to impose financial and procedural barriers on Plaintiff, who has already suffered significant emotional and financial harm.

Defendants’ actions, including their violation of the bankruptcy discharge and false statements to the court, suggest bad faith and potential malicious prosecution.

F. Plaintiff’s Counter-Request for a Security Bond

Given Defendants’ pattern of harassment, defamation, and filing false statements, Plaintiff requests that the Court require Defendants to post a security bond of $100,000 to cover damages for defamation, libel, slander, emotional distress, and costs incurred by Plaintiff in defending against this motion and prior actions.

IV. OPPOSITION TO DECLARATION OF STEVEN M. DAILEY

The Declaration of Steven M. Dailey, submitted in support of Defendants’ motion, is untruthful and misleading ( and must be disbarred immediately ). It fails to disclose Plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge on May 3, 2011, which extinguished debts owed to Defendants and prohibited foreclosure actions. Additionally, it omits the denial of a similar security bond request in Case No. 21BBCV00979.

These omissions constitute material misrepresentations and undermine the validity of Defendants’ motion.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Ethel Matthews respectfully requests that the Court:

  1. Deny Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, require a security bond, or issue a prefiling order.
  2. Order Defendants to post a security bond of $100,000 for defamation, libel, slander, and harassment.
  3. Award Plaintiff costs incurred in responding to this motion, if appropriate.
  4. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: July 29, 2025

Respectfully submitted,


/s/ Homeowner
Plaintiff in Pro Per

Notes for Your Consideration

  1. Filing and Formatting: Ensure the document complies with the Superior Court of your State, and County’s formatting and filing requirements (e.g., font size, margins, and local rules). You may need to include a proof of service to confirm delivery to Defendants’ counsel.
  2. Hearing Date: The draft includes a placeholder for the hearing date. Please insert the correct date and verify the time and department with the court.
  3. Evidence and Exhibits: The draft references your bankruptcy discharge and prior case (21BBCV00979). Attach relevant documents (e.g., bankruptcy discharge order, court rulings) as exhibits to strengthen your opposition. Ensure all referenced documents are properly labeled and submitted with the filing.
  4. Counter-Request for Bond: Your request for a $100,000 security bond from Defendants is included but may require additional legal grounding (e.g., citing specific statutes or case law for defamation or sanctions). Courts rarely grant such counter-requests without a separate motion, so you may wish to consult a legal resource or file a separate motion for sanctions.
  5. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel: The draft addresses Defendants’ reliance on these doctrines, emphasizing that prior cases were not decided on their merits. If you have specific case numbers or rulings, including them could strengthen your argument.
  6. Tone and Clarity: The draft maintains a professional tone while incorporating your allegations of defamation and harassment. Some emotional language (e.g., “robbed Plaintiff of the opportunity to start afresh”) was adjusted for legal formality but retained where relevant to your due process argument.

If you need assistance with specific sections, exhibit preparation, or further legal research, please let us a AAF know! You can also clarify any additional facts or arguments you’d like to emphasize.

California Homeowner Bill of Rights

Federal Debt Collection Practices

Post Views: 394