Bashkin v. Kamara
Filed 3/27/06 Bashkin v. Kamara CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| PAUL BASHKIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BILLIE JO KAMARA, Defendant and Respondent. | B177013 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC298335) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Highberger, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Bashkin, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, James M. Schiavenza, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richard J. Rojo and Marsha S. Miller, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, and David Adida, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent.
_____________________________________
Paul Bashkin appeals from the judgment of dismissal following his failure to post security pursuant to the order declaring him a vexatious litigant upon motion of Billie Jo Kamara.
Baskin contends the order must be overturned because Kamara failed to establish that Bashkin suffered at least five adverse final determinations in litigation within the past seven-year period and it was not reasonably probable he would prevail in this action. Bashkin also contends the order must be vacated because Kamara brought the vexatious litigant motion for the improper purpose of preventing him from gathering evidence through discovery to show he could prevail. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the California Attorney General to represent Kamara and erred in denying his discovery motions. He assigns as error the San Diego Superior Court's transfer of this action to the Los Angeles Superior Court. We reject all of Bashkin's contentions and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
1. Underlying Case
In Bashkin v. Rand (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2002, No. BC251311), Bashkin sued his former attorney, Michael J. Rand, for breach of contract and fraud based on Rand's alleged failure to release liens filed against Bashkin as required under the parties' settlement agreement.
On September 19, 2001, a hearing was held on Rand's demurrer to the complaint. The trial court (Hon. James C. Chalfant) noted that Bashkin was not present but that he had lodged a first amended complaint the previous day. The court ordered the first amended complaint stricken in view of its addition of a cause of action. The court also sustained the demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend within 15 days.
On October 15, 2001, in the morning session, the trial court denied Rand's ex parte application to dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to file an amended complaint and for entry of judgment based on its belief that the request had to be made by way of a noticed motion. After being apprised of the court rule allowing this procedure, the court considered the renewed application on the merits and granted it based on Bashkin's failure to file a first amended complaint.
The transcript of the September 19 and October 15, 2001 hearings in the record is stamped â€
