Sanders v. Ryan
Appellant Phillip C. Sanders appeals from the dismissal of his action against respondents Stuart Ryan, the warden at Calipatria State Prison (CSP), Gerald Janda, the associate warden at CSP, and Mary Sosa, a correctional officer at CSP. Sanders ordered specialty food items from a joint Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) food sale that was held at the prison as part of a fundraiser. The food items were to be distributed on May 1, 2005. However, the food items were not delivered to Sanders because personnel at CSP determined that the food was contaminated. After the contamination was discovered, CSP prepared similar food items to distribute to inmates. Sanders refused to accept the substitute food items and sought a refund of the $21.50 he had paid for the food. After he was denied a refund, Sanders filed a complaint for breach of contract and concealment, naming as defendants Ryan, Janda, and Sosa individually, as well as Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. and Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Sanders attached to his complaint a copy of the order form for the food items. He alleges that the order form constitutes a contract between him and the defendants.
The three individual respondents demurred to Sanders's complaint, contending that Sanders failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract or concealment against them. The trial court sustained the respondents' demurrer and dismissed them from the case, with prejudice. The court also found that Sanders had previously been determined to be a vexatious litigant within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1), and issued a prefiling order requiring Sanders to obtain leave of court before filing any further litigation.
Sanders appeals from the trial court's judgment, contending that he did sufficiently state causes of action for breach of contract and concealment as to respondents, and claiming that the trial court erred in finding him to be a vexatious litigant and/or in entering a prefiling order.
Court conclude that Sanders failed to state facts sufficient to maintain his causes of action against the three respondents. Court further conclude that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents Sanders from relitigating his status as a vexatious litigant, and that the trial court did not err in issuing a prefiling order pursuant to the vexatious litigant statute. Court therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on Sanders v. Ryan