Estate of Senator
Filed 6/06/08 Estate of Senator CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
Estate of FRANK E. SENATOR, Deceased. | |
CATHERINE SENATOR, as Executor, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. BRUCE SENATOR, Objector and Appellant. | G039576 (Super. Ct. No. A157925) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Marjorie Laird Carter, Judge. Request for judicial notice; request to argue by telephone. Requests denied. Appeal dismissed.
Bruce Senator, in pro per., for Objector and Appellant.
Miller Law Group, Mitchell Miller and Arthur Nielsen for Petitioner and Respondent.
Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, subdivision (c) (all further statutory references are to this code) prohibits the filing of litigation presented by a vexatious litigant unless the vexatious litigant first obtains an order from the presiding judge permitting it. Appellant Bruce Senator was declared to be a vexatious litigant in the San Joaquin County Superior Court in case No. CV020625 on September 15, 2003 and in case No. CV021123 on October 15, 2003. He did not obtain permission from the presiding justice of this division to file the appeal herein.
On April 30, 2008, this court issued an order stating its intent to dismiss the appeal on May 30, 2008 for appellants failure to comply with section 391.7, subdivision (c), but granting appellant an opportunity, if he contended section 391.7, subdivision (c) did not apply, to explain his reasons why the appeal should not be dismissed. The response was due by May 23.
On May 27, appellant filed his response. We treat it as having been filed timely. In it, appellant did not deny having failed to obtain permission to pursue this appeal. He indicated his failure to obtain such permission was through mistake or inadvertence and sought relief from default under section 473. We considered such relief and, in doing so, we considered the merits of his appeal, which was previously briefed.
We find no merit in appellants appeal and deny his request for relief under section 473. Our previous order scheduling oral argument is vacated. Appellants
request to argue by telephone is denied. The request for judicial notice is denied. The appeal shall be dismissed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal.
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BEDSWORTH, J.
IKOLA, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
