C.A. 4th;
E065766

The Fourth Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment. The court held that where a complaint states claims on behalf of both a party previously declared a vexatious litigant and a party not declared a vexatious litigant, the vexatious litigant statutes support dismissal of all claims brought on behalf of the vexatious litigant, but does not support dismissal of any claims brought solely on behalf of the non-vexatious litigant.

Solera Oak Valley Greens Association operates a planned, gated community. Aristea Hupp owned two properties in that community. She and her adult son Paul Hupp apparently both resided in the community. Aristea filed a complaint against Solano and others, challenging various actions taken by Solera. Aristea, who filed the complaint in propria persona, was the sole plaintiff named in the caption of the complaint. However, the complaint included both defamation and private nuisance claims in which Paul, and not Aristea, was the sole subject of the claims. The complaint elsewhere repeatedly referred to Paul and to “plaintiffs,” in the plural. Citing Code Civ. Proc. §391.7, Solera moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that Paul had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and was the subject of a prefiling order.