Lancaster v. Beats Elecs.

1

WALTER LANCASTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BEATS ELECTRONICS LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B298792

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division

September 27, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a prefiling order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. BC687998 Judge Dennis J. Landin.

Walter Lancaster, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Morrison & Foerster, Bita Rahebi and James R. Sigel for Defendants and Respondents.

WILLHITE, J.

Appellant Walter Lancaster, appearing in propria persona, appeals from an order designating him a vexatious litigant and prohibiting him from filing any new litigation without first obtaining permission from the presiding judge or justice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7.^[1] The trial court entered the prefiling order after appellant filed a series of redundant motions challenging the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against respondents Apple Inc. and Beats Electronics LLC. In this appeal, appellant also seeks to challenge the orders relating to the dismissal of his lawsuit.

We conclude that the only order properly before this court is the prefiling review order entered by the trial court against appellant as a vexatious litigant. We further conclude that appellant has failed to identify any reversible error with regard to that order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's prefiling order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Appellants Lawsuit Against Respondents and Trial Court's Order Granting Respondents' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Over a decade ago, music artist Andre Young (aka Dr. Dre) and record executive Jimmy Iovine decided to bring new headphones to the market. The result of their efforts was Beats, a company that has sold millions of headphones and other audio products. Apple acquired Beats in 2014.

In December 2017, appellant brought suit against Apple and Beats (hereinafter respondents) setting forth multiple causes of action, based on the assertion that he was responsible for the "Beats by Dre" headphone line that launched in 2009. In support of this assertion, appellant alleged that in either 1990 or 1991, he told Dr. Dre that "in the FUTURE the way YOU SOUND in the STUDIO is going in this car a (Mbz 190e), this phone a (Panasonic) and the Sony Walkman," and Dr. Dre had responded "GOTTTDUHAYMmm!!!! (God Damn)." Appellant further alleged that he had made a similar statement to Iovine in either 1996 or 1997 and Iovine had responded, "SURE THING!"

On August 1, 2018, the trial court granted respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings.^[2] The court concluded that appellant's claims accrued more than three years before he filed his December 2017 complaint and were therefore barred by the statute of limitations. The court further found that even if it were to accept appellant's position that his claims did not accrue until the date he subjectively believed the defendants had wronged him, appellant's opposition confirmed he believed that date was in May 2014. As such, his December 2017 complaint would still be untimely.^[3]

B. Appellants Pre and Post-Judgment Motions Challenging Trial Court's Dismissal Order

Appellant filed his first in a series of reconsideration motions on August 13, 2018, arguing that the trial court had "arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically" chosen "May 2014" as the "start date" for his claims and that his claims are actionable under the "Doctrine of Continuing Violations." The trial court denied appellant's reconsideration motion on October 25, 2018, concluding appellant's argument regarding the continuing violations doctrine was "not new law," and had been "explicitly considered and rejected" in the court's August 1, 2018 ruling.

On November 9, 2018, appellant filed a second motion for reconsideration, seeking reconsideration of the October 25, 2018 order denying the first reconsideration motion. Appellant argued that the October 25, 2018 order was "void" because "the Judge failed to cite any controlling or persuasive authority in support of it's [sic] decision." Appellant reiterated his argument that his claims were actionable and timely under the "Doctrine of Continuous Violations."

On December 12, 2018, while appellant's second motion for reconsideration was pending, the court entered final judgment in favor of respondents. On January 31, 2019, the trial court vacated the judgment to "consider, adjudicate and issue a formal ruling on Plaintiff's Second Reconsideration Motion." It then denied the motion because it did not "conform to the requirements of a Motion under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110" and "present[ed] no new facts or authority to justify a new conclusion on the same matter the Court ruled on in October 25, 2018." That same day, the court reentered judgment in favor of respondents and the superior court clerk served a notice of entry of the judgment on the parties.

On February 15, 2019, appellant filed a purported "motion to vacate" the judgment.^[4] In substance, appellant's motion repeated the same argument made in his prior reconsideration motions, asserting that the August 1, 2018 order granting judgment on the pleadings had misapplied the continuing violations doctrine. The trial court denied appellant's motion on April 4, 2019, explaining that "'a motion to vacate lies only where a 'different judgment' is compelled by the facts found," and judgments on the pleadings do not turn on triable facts. As such, appellant's purported section 663 motion was "procedurally defective."

On April 15, 2019, appellant filed a third motion for reconsideration. This version sought reconsideration of the April 4, 2019 order denying appellant's motion to vacate the judgment. The motion once again renewed appellant's same arguments about the August 1, 2018 order. Citing APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 180, the trial court denied the motion on May 16, 2019 as "procedurally improper" because "[j]udgment was already entered on January 31, 2019 in favor of Defendants on all causes of action."

C. The Vexatious Litigant Finding and Prefiling Review Order

On May 16, 2019-the same day the trial court denied appellant's third reconsideration motion-the court, on its own motion, entered a prefiling order against Lancaster as a vexatious litigant under section 391.7. In the order denying appellant's reconsideration motion, the court explained that it found that appellant "falls under the definition of a vexatious litigant" because he "repeatedly attempts to relitigate in pro per the validity of the determination against the same Defendant as to whom the litigation was finally determined." The court accordingly prohibited appellant "from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in pro per without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed."

On May 22, 2019, respondents served file-stamped copies of the court's May 16, 2019 orders on appellant.

D. Appellant's Notice of Appeal

On May 28, 2019, appellant filed a "request to file new litigation by vexatious litigant" in the trial court, seeking the trial court's leave to file a notice of appeal. The trial court issued no order granting this request and appellant did not make any such request of this Court. Nevertheless, on June 25, 2019, appellant filed a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal indicated that appellant was appealing an "order after judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1(a)(2)." In addition, the notice of appeal lists the dates of the "judgment or order" appealed from as April 25, 2018, August 1, 2018, December 12, 2018, January 31, 2019, April 4, 2019, and May 16, 2019.

E. This Court's Denial of Respondents' Motion to Dismiss

Respondents moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Respondents argued that appellant's challenges were untimely and sought review of nonappealable orders. Respondents further argued that appellant, as a vexatious litigant, had failed to secure this court's permission to appeal. On July 1, 2020, we denied the motion, stating that the May 16, 2019 order declaring appellant to be a vexatious litigant was an appealable injunction, "with no requirement to first obtain a prefiling order before filing the notice of appeal." We further found that appellant's notice of appeal was timely with respect to the May 16, 2019 vexatious litigant/prefiling order, but made clear that our "ruling is without prejudice to respondent arguing in its briefing on appeal that other rulings appellant may seek to raise in his appellant's opening brief are not cognizable on appeal."

DISCUSSION

In his opening brief, appellant appears to seek review of: (1) the April 25, 2018 anti-SLAPP ruling; (2) the August 1, 2018 order granting judgment on the pleadings; (3) the subsequently vacated December 12, 2018 judgment; (4) the January 31, 2019 judgment; (5) the April 4, 2019 denial of appellant's motion to vacate; (6) the May 16, 2019 order denying reconsideration; and (7) the separate May 16, 2019 order designating appellant as a vexatious litigant. Respondent counters that the only order properly the subject of this appeal is the trial court's May 16, 2019 vexatious litigant designation/prefiling order. Respondent further argues that the latter ruling was supported by substantial evidence, and that appellant has failed to otherwise demonstrate any reversible error with regards to the trial court's order.^[5] We agree with respondent on both points.

I. The Vexatious Litigant Statutes

"The vexatious litigant statutes (§§ 391-[391.8]) are designed to curb misuse of the court system by those persistent and obsessive...