SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ATE:

DEPT. 1

04/01/15

ONORABLE

KEVIN C. BRAZ ILE

JUDGEII

ONORABLE

L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM

R. ECHON, C.A.

Deputy Sheriffll
Defendant
*NO LEGALCounsel
FILE*

1:30 pmlGC045202

DEPUTY
ELECTRONIC

NONE

CLERK
RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

PlaintiffNON-APPEARANCE

Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

COURT ORDER RE: MARCH 17, 2015 APPLICATION TO VACATE

PRE-FILING ORDER/REQUEST TO FILE NEW LITIGATION;
MARCH 25, 2015 APPLICATION TO VACATE PRE-FILING
ORDER/REQUEST TO FILE NEW LITIGATION

Jose Castaneda ("Castaneda") and James Blume

("Blume") are ostensibly two vexatious litigants who
have tended to jointly file their court pleadings.
According to Judicial Council records, Castaneda was
declared a vexatious litigant on May 18, 2012 in
case BC 466 737, presided over by Judge Philip H.
Hickok, and Blume was declared a vexatious litigant
9c:l.13_~ Be 45 :3_6 64, pJ;eEJ<!~c:l_o-y~r_~ _
onJ1JrV:~H_J.,
7J~_~Ql:3 __iJ].
__
by Judge Robert L. Hess.
On March 17, 2015, the court received both an MC-703
"APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO VACATE PREFILING ORDER AND
REMOVE PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER
FROM JUDICIAL COUNCIL
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST" form (which was curiously
dated January 7, 2015 at the signature line) and an
MC-701 "REQUEST TO FILE NEW LITIGATION BY VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT" form, both of which were lodged in propria
persona by "Jose Castaneda aka James Blume."
The
first document shows separate telephone numbers and
e-mail addresses for Castaneda and Blume, which
negates that Castaneda is the same person as Blume
despite the use of the "aka" ("also known as")
designation atop both forms.
However, a close

Page

1 of

11

n:e:PT. 1

MINUTES ENTERED
04/01/15
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DATE:

COUNTY

OF LOS ANGELES

04/01/15

HONORABLE

KEVIN C.

DEPT.
BRAZILE

JUDGE

II L.

ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM

HONORABLE

R. ECHON, C.A.

Deputy Sheriffll
Defendant
*NO LEGALCounsel
FILE*

1:30 pmlGC045202

DEPUTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC

NONE

RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

PlaintiffNON-APPEARANCE

Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

review of both documents indicates Castaneda is only

seeking relief on his own behalf in both
applications.
Therefore, the court will disregard
and strike as improper and contrary to law Blume's
name shown as an "aka" on both documents and his
additional signature on the application to vacate
prefiling order, because Blume (as a non-attorney)
cannot advocate for this relief on Castaneda's
see also Business &
behalf.
See CCP 436i
Professions Code 6126.
On March 19, 2015, supplemental documents were
submitted by Castaneda in support of the above
application.

new MC-703
On MarC1125, 2015, the court received
form and a ~new~MC":76~iform from "Jose Castaneda aka
James Blume" along with supporting documents.
Again, a close review of the documents indicates
Castaneda is only seeking relief on his own behalf
in both applications.
Therefore, the court will
again disregard and strike as improper and contrary
to law Blume's name shown as an llaka" on the
documents and his additional signatures on both the
application to vacate prefiling order and request to
file new litigation, and any other submitted
documents, because Blume (as a non-attorney) cannot
advocate for this relief on Castaneda's behalf.
See
see also Business & PrOfessions Code
CCP 436i
6126.

Page

2 of

11

DEPT. 1

MINUTES ENTERED
04/01/15
COUNTY CLERR

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA .. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE:

DEPT.

04/01/15

HONORABLE

KEVIN C.

BRAZILE

JUDGE

HONORABLE

II L.

I SMAEL

DEPUTY

JUDGE PRO TEM

R. ECHONr C.A.

Deputy

Sheriffll NONE

Defendant
*NO LEGALCounsel
FILE*

1:30 pmlGC045202

ELECTRONIC

CLERK
RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporrer

PlaintiffNON-APPEARANCE

Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

March 17 Application to Vacate Prefiling Order

Because JUdge Philip H. Hickok is no longer with the
court and therefore not available, Department 1 may
consider this application as the designee of the
Presiding Judge.
See CCP 391.8{a) ("If that
justice or judge who entered the order is not
available, the application shall be made before the
presiding justice or presiding judge, or his or her
designee.")
There are several problems with this application.
First, court records indicate that Castaneda applied
for this relief last year, which request was denied
on April IS, 2014.
If an application for this
relief is denied, the applicantmust
wait at leCist
12 months after the date of the-denial of a prior
application before again seeking this relief.
CCP
391.8(b).
Therefore, Castaneda'S March 17, 2015
application is premature because it was brought less
than 12 months after his last application was
denied.
Even if the application were to be considered, it
does not seek to vacate the above-noted prefiling
order entered in case BC 466 737 but instead, at 2
of the form, seeks to vacate purported prefiling
orders entered (1) March 28, 2012 in Los Angeles
Superior Court case B 223 549 and (2) "Not entered
denied May IS, 2010" in Court of Appeal case BC 402
096 [note: the court names have erroneously been
:kl:NUTES ENTERED

Page

3 of

11

DEPT.

1
COuNTY
04/(\)1/15
CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE:

DEPT. 1

04/01/15

HONORABLE

KEVIN C.

BRAZILE

JUDGEII

HONORABLE

L. ISMAEL

DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGE PRO TEM

R. ECHON, C.A.
1:30 pmlGC045202

ELECTRONIC

DeputySheriffll NONE

*NO LEGAL FILE*

ESTATE OF FELICITAS

vs

RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

Plaintiff
Cuunsel

CASTANEDA

NON-APPEARANCE
Defendant
Counsel

THE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14
1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

reversed as to these cases].

Regarding Los Angeles
Superior Court case BC 402096{ the court cannot
vacate a prefiling order that even Castaneda admits
does not exist.
Regarding Court of Appeal case B
223 549 (an appeal of BC 402 096 in which the trial
court's ruling was affirmed) { that case was
completed on August 18{ 2011 - prior to when
Castaneda indicates a prefiling order was entered and thus there is also no prefiling order to
challenge in that case (and if there were, it would
have to be challenged at the Court of Appeal and not
in this court) .
Even if the court were to presume that Castaneda
meant to challenge the prefiling order entered
againsthirn May l8{ 2012 in case BC 466 737 {
Castaneda has failed to evidence he quaLlfies for
the relief sought.
A pre-filing order may be
vacated and removal of a vexatious litigant's name
from the Judicial Council's list of vexatious
litigants be ordered only upon a showing of a
material change in the facts upon which the order
was granted and that the ends of justice would be
CCP 39l.8(c)_
served by vacating the order.
Thus, while a vexatious litigant determination may
be erasable, erasure requires substantial evidence
that the vexatious litigant has mended his ways or
conduct.
Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th
77{ 83. Substantial evidence that bears on whether
a vexatious litigant has mended his ways is not some
success in litigation, but evidence that he has

Page

4 of

11

DEPT. 1

MINUTES ENTERED
04/01/15
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE:

DEPI'. 1

04/01/15

HONORABLE

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

JUDGE

HONORABLE

II

L. ISMAEL

DEPUTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC

JUDGE PRO TEM

R. ECHON,
1: 30 pm 1GC045202

C.A.

Deputy Sheriffll

*NO LEGAL FILE*

NONE

RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

Plaintiff
Counsel

ESTATE OF FELICITAS

NON-APPEA.RANCE

CASTANEDA

VS

Defendant
Counsel

THE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14
1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

given up suing people as a way of life.

Id. at
93-94.
Such evidence includes proof of a propensity
for honesty, of efforts at obtaining gainful
employment, of genuine remorse for the costs of
litigation inflicted on the defendants who were the
object of previous lawsuits, and of some genuine
effort at restitution toward the previous victims of
his litigation, including actual payment of cost
orders made by the courts in prior litigation.
Id.
Evidence of this sort is not offered by Castaneda.
In 3 of the form, in which the applicant may
describe the requisite material change, and also in
a separate "Motion for a pre-Filing Order" that
instead supports the request to vacate the prefiling
order, Castaneda lists 12 cases in which he was
involved or allegedly involved as well as a succinctsummary of each (including accusations of
malfeasance on the part of several attorneys and
judicial officers).
Although difficult to follow,
it appears this is an attempt to challenge the
validity of his being determined to be vexatiousi
however, the time to challenge that order has long
expired.
Thus, the entirety of the application does
not set forth in any way that he has "mended his
ways" as is the focus of this determination.
In the
supplemental one-page handwritten document lodged
March 19, 2015, accompanied by a copy of the order
declaring Castaneda to be vexatious and by copies of
two unsigned proposed orders, Castaneda continues
arguing in the same vein and therefore these also
MINUTES
Page

of

1.1

DEPT.

1.

ENTERED

04/01/1.5
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

DATE:

04/01/15

HONORABLE

DEPT. 1

KEVIN C. BRAZ ILE

JUDGE

II

L. ISMAEL

DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGE PRO TEM

HONORABLE

R.

ECHON, C.A.

Deputy Sheriffll

ELECTRONIC

NONE

RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

1:30 pmlGC045202

*NO LEGAL FILE*

Plaintiff
Counsel

ESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANBDA

VS
THE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.

NON-APPEARANCE
Defendant
Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

are unhelpful

to Castaneda's

application.

The "party" box on the form application includes the

purported caption "Request for Clarification
Hearing, for Change of Venue to Federal Court, for a
Reversal of Fraudulent Judgment Obtained by Fraud."
This is a non-sequitur to the form itself; further,
no argument in this regard is forwarded and, as
noted above, any challenge to the 2012 determination
that Castaneda is a vexatious litigant has long been
time-barred.
Based on all the above, Castaneda has offered no
discernible admissible evidence probative of a
material change in the facts upon which his
pre-filing order was issued, and the contents of
this application support the conclusion that he has
not "mended his ways" or changed his overall outlook
towards litigation.
Accordingly, the court DENIES
this application to vacate the CCP 39l.7(a)
pre-filing order issued against Castaneda.
Castaneda may not file another application for this
relief until at least 12 months after the date of
this order.
CCP 391.8{b).
March 2S Application to Vacate Prefiling Order
This application seeks the same relief as the
application above, but provides different arguments
regarding alleged attorney and judicial malfeasance
This application suffers from
in 3 of the form.
similar substantive defects as the application

Page

6 of

11

DEPT. 1

MINUTES ENTERED
04/01/15
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

~TE:

DEYI'. 1

04/01/15

)NORABLE

KEVIN C. BRAZ ILE

JUDGE

)NORABLE

II

L. ISMAEL

DEPUTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC

JUDGE PRO TEM

R. ECHON, C.A.
1:30 pmlGC045202

Deputy Sheriffll

*NO LEGAL FILE*

NONE

RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

Plaintiff
Counsel

ESTATE OF FELICITAS

NON-APPEARANCE

CASTANEDA

VS

Defendant

THE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.

Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

above, in that it fails to evidence Castaneda has

"mended his ways" or changed his overall outlook
towards litigation.
Further, because this court
denied this relief less than a year ago and is also
denying the above application, this application also
is brought prematurely and is DENIED.
As already noted above, Castaneda may not file
another application for this relief until at least
12 months after the date of this order.
CCP
391.8(b) .
March 17 Request

to File New Litigation

Castaneda's request to file new litigation is not

accompanied by any proposed pleading.
On the form,
he indicates he seeks approval to file a
cross-complaint and counter-claim for damages in
case "GC 045 202 (GC 039 459, GC 039 473)," alleging
this has merit because the Pasadena courthouse clerk
withheld documents in order to "fix cases" and
engaged in other wrongdoing, as did his attorneys,
the court reporter, and a judicial officer.
Case GC 045 202 resolved via judgment of dismissal
on December 29, 2010 after the court granted the
motion for judgment on the pleadings brought by the
defendants (Jack K. Conway Esq. and Law Offices of
Jack K. Conway).
Case GC 039 459 was dismissed on
April 16, 2008 pursuant to counsel's stipulation, as
the plaintiff (Felicitas Castaneda) had died and

Page

7 of

11

DEPT.

MINUTES ENTERED
04/01/15
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE:

DEPT.

04/01/15

HONORABLE

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

JUDGEIl

HONORABLE

L.

ISMAEL

DEPUTY
ELECTRONIC

JUDGE PRO TEM

R. ECHON, C.A.
1:30 pmlGC045202

Deputy Sheriffll

*NO LEGAL FILE*

NONE

CLERK
RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

Plaintiff
Counsel

ESTATE OF FELICITAS

NON-APPRAR.ANCE

CASTANEDA

VS

Defendant

THE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.

Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

~ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

therefore counsel would "proceed with the estate in

probate."
Case GC 039 473 was similarly ordered
dismissed on April 23, 2008, with the court noting
that all matters "will be adjudicated in the probate
court."
Thus, Castaneda is time-barred from filing
such a cross-complaint or counter-claim in any or
all of these cases.
See, e.g., CCP 428.50{c) (the
court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint
"at
any time during the course of the action") .
Accordingly, Castaneda has failed to carry his CCP
391.7{b) burden of proof to show the proposed new
litigation has merit and the court also DENIES
Castaneda's request to file this proposed new
litigation.
March 25 Request

to File New Litigation

castaneda's request to file new litigation seeks

leave to file (I) the above-noted application to
vacate the prefiling order and remove his name from
the vexatious litigant list, and (2) additional
documents in case "GC 045 202 {GC 039 473 - GC 039
459)."
As to the first part, there is no need for
permission to file an application to vacate
prefiling order, as seen above.
As to the second
part, the proposed filings are difficult to
decipher, but it appears they primarily argue
against Castaneda's then-lawyer and other attorneys.
As these cases ended years ago (details above),
these arguments are time-barred and thus lack merit.

Page

8 of

11

DEPT. 1

MINUTES ENTERED
04/01/15
CO'UNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

)ATE:

DEPT.

04/01/15

IDNORABLE

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

JUDGEII

L. ISMAEL

DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGE PRO TEM

IONORABLE

R.

ECHON1

C.A.

1:30_pmIGC045202
~

Deputy Sheriffll

*NO LEGAL FILE*

ELECTRONIC

NONE

RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

Plaintiff
Counsel

JESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDA

VS
THE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.

NON-APPEARANCE
Defendant
Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

To the extent that the submitted papers criticize

Judge William D. Stewart's demeanor at one or more
recent hearings I the proper path is not to file a
document but instead to make a formal written
complaint to the Presiding Judge's Office.
It
appears Castaneda has already done so. To the
extent that the submitted papers seek to bring a CCP
170.6 challenge to Judge Stewart, there is no
merit to that filing because it was brought untimely
under CCP 170.6(a) (2): the case was assigned to
Judge Stewart on October 2, 2014 and this challenge
is brought more than 15 days after notice of that
reassignment.
AccordinglYI Castaneda has failed to carry his CCP
39l.7(b) burden of proof to show the proposed new
litigation has merit and the court also DENIES
Castaneda's request to file this proposed new
litigation.
No Hearing

on April

15, 2015

Castaneda served documents on numerous other parties

reflecting a purported April 15, 2015 hearing date
before Presiding Judge Kuhl in Department 91. There
is no such hearing on calendar.
Therefore,
Castaneda is ordered to serve copies of this entire
order on all parties upon whom the earlier documents
were served.
Additional

Comment

page

9 of

11

DEPT.

MINUTES ENTERED
04/01/15
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE:

DEPT.

04/01/15

HONORABLE

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

JUDGEII

HONORABLE

L. ISMAEL

JUDGE PRO TEM

R. ECHON, C.A.

DEPUTY
ELECTRONIC

Deputy Sheriffll

CLERK
RECORDING

MONITOR

Reporter

NONE

*NO LEGALCounsel
FILE*
Defendant

1:30 pmlGC045202

PlaintiffNON-APPEARANCE

Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

The court notes that much of Castaneda's

applications argues that his prior attorney Jack K.
Conway has been disbarred; however, at all the
relevant times of the above representation, Conway
was eligible to practice law.
(The first public
disciplinary action was an August 30, 2013
suspension for misappropriation
of client funds and
failing to comply with conditions of a 2011 private
reproval, followed by a July 20, 2014 order that he
was ineligible to practice law and the formal order
of disbarment on December 20, 2014.)
Moving party

is to give notice.

CLERK'S

CERTIFICATE

OF MAILING

I, the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of the

above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am
not a party to the cause herein, and that on this
date I served the above minute order upon each party
or counsel named below by placing the document for
collection and mailing so as to cause it to be
deposited in the United States mail at the
courthouse in Los Angeles, California, one copy of
the original filed/entered herein in a separate
sealed envelope to each address as shown below with
the postage thereon fully prepaid, in accordance
with the standard court practices.

Page

10 of

11

DEPT. 1

MINUTES ENTERED
04/01/15
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DATE:

DEPI'. 1

04/01/15

HONORABLE

KEVIN C.

BRAZILE

JUDGEII

HONORABLE

L.

ISMAEL

DEPUTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC

JUDGE PRO TEM

R. ECHON, C.A.
1:30 pmlGC045202

Deputy Sheriffll

*NO LEGAL FILE*

NONE

RECORDING

MONITOR

Reponer

Plaintiff
Counsel

ESTATE OF FELICITAS CASTANEDA

VS
THE LAW FIRM OF JACK K.

NON-APPEARANCE
Defundant
Counsel

2nd vol. sent 10/10/14

1ST VOL SENT 10/15/14
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Dated: April

1, 2015

Sherri R.

ecutive Officer/Clerk

By:

Clerk

Jose Castaned
P.O. Box 947
Pasadena, California

91102

MI:NOTES ENTERED

Page 11 of

11

DEPT.

04/01/15
COUNTY CLERK