Singh v. Vintage Estates

Filed 9/5/06 Singh v. Vintage Estates CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

RAJ SINGH,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

VINTAGE ESTATES,

Defendant and Respondent.

C051239

(Super. Ct. No. 01AS00096)

Plaintiff Raj Singh appeals from a judgment dismissing his action for breach of contract against defendant Vintage Estates (aka Vintage Estates II, Inc.) after he failed to post the security the court ordered because he is a vexatious litigant and there is not a reasonable probability he will prevail. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 391.1, 391.3, 581d [signed order of dismissal appealable].)^[1] Since none of plaintiff's contentions has merit, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging breach of contract. Defendant moved for an order requiring plaintiff to post security because he is a vexatious litigant. In response, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that provided more factual detail than his initial pleading. The amended pleading did not persuade the trial court, which granted the motion. After plaintiff failed to post the security, the court dismissed the action.

DISCUSSION

I. Trial Court's Scope of Review

Before requiring security, a court must find â€

Description	Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his action for breach of contract against defendant. after plaintiff failed to post the security the court ordered because he is a vexatious litigant and there is not a reasonable probability plaintiff will prevail.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.