Filed 9/12/22 Cono v. Mazza CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LEO CONO,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ADAM MAZZA,

Defendant and Respondent.

 B314477

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 21STCV07520)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, David J. Cowan, Judge. Affirmed. 

Leo Cono, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. 

Bryan, Cave, Leighton, Paisner, Jed P. White and Helen 

Goodman for Defendant and Respondent. 

____________________________________
2

Plaintiff and appellant Leo Cono appeals the August 5, 

2021 orders declaring him a vexatious litigant and 

prohibiting him, under Code of Civil Procedure1

section 391.7, from filing any new litigation in the courts of 

California without approval of the presiding justice or 

presiding judge of the court in which the action is to be filed, 

unless he is represented by an attorney. The parties are 

familiar with the facts and our opinion does not meet the 

criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) 

We accordingly resolve the cause before us, consistent with 

constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with 

reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior 

Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1262–1263 [three-paragraph 

discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional 

requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to 

counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, 

grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an 

appellate] court need not discuss every case or fact raised by 

counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 25, 2021, Cono filed a 222-page civil 

complaint against “Adam Mazza, et al.,” apparently in 

response to the termination of a co-working lease agreement.

On June 16, 2021, the trial court issued an order to show 

cause why it should not find Cono to be a vexatious litigant. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure, unless stated otherwise.
3

The record on appeal only contains the first page of the court’s 

June 16, 2021 order, which states that “[s]ince December 6, 

2019, Leo Cono has initiated, in propria persona, twelve new 

litigations in Los Angeles Superior Court.” 

The August 5, 2021 minute order indicates that no court 

reporter was present at the hearing. The minute order stated, 

in relevant part: “In a minute order dated June 16, 2021 filed 

in the above case, this court scheduled for this date an Order to 

Show Cause (‘OSC’) Re: Leo Cono Should Not Be Declared a 

Vexatious Litigant and be subject to a pre-filing order, 

prohibiting any new litigation in the courts of this state in 

propria persona without first obtaining leave of the Presiding 

Judge of the court where the litigation is proposed. (CCP 

§ 391.7(a).)” According to the August 5, 2021 order, Cono 

presented his objections orally at the hearing. The court found 

sufficient grounds to declare Leo Cono a vexatious litigant 

under section 391, “and Cono has failed to sufficiently evidence 

why the [c]ourt should not make this finding.” On the same 

day, the trial court also filed a separate Judicial Council form 

order (VL-100, Prefiling Order – Vexatious Litigant), which

stated that on the court’s motion, Leo Cono “unless represented 

by an attorney, [is] prohibited from filing any new litigation in 

the courts of California without approval of the presiding justice 

or presiding judge of the court in which the action is to be filed.” 

The order directed the clerk to provide a copy of the order to the 

California Judicial Council. 

After filing a timely notice of appeal, Cono filed in the 

trial court several applications for an order to vacate the 

prefiling order and remove plaintiff/petitioner from the Judicial 

Council vexatious litigant list.
4

Cono has filed in this court a myriad of motions in 

connection with the current appeal.2 By this opinion, we deny 

the following outstanding motions:

1. Response/Reply, filed March 8, 2022;

2. Request for a statement of decision, filed May 12, 2022;

3. Request for a statement of decision, filed May 16, 2022;

4. Request to adjudicate immediately, filed May 24, 2022;

5. Request to adjudicate immediately, filed June 6, 2022; 

and

6. Letter brief re: preference, filed August 8, 2022.

I. Relevant Law and Standard of Review

A party may not be declared to be a vexatious litigant 

without a noticed motion and hearing “which includes the right 

to oral argument and presentation of evidence.” (Bravo v. Ismaj

(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 225 (Bravo).) Section 391, 

subdivision (b), offers several definitions for a vexatious 

litigant, including a person who “[i]n the immediately preceding 

seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in 

propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small 

claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to 

the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at 

least two years without having been brought to trial or 

hearing,” or who “[a]fter a litigation has been finally 

determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or 

attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity 

2 Respondent Adam Mazza filed a notice stating he took no 

position on Cono’s appeal. Mazza did not file anything in 

response to Cono’s motions on appeal. 
5

of the determination against the same defendant or defendants 

as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the 

cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or 

law, determined or concluded by the final determination 

against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the 

litigation was finally determined.” (§ 391, subd. (b)(1) & (2).) A 

person who “repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, 

or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in 

other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause 

unnecessary delay” while acting in propria persona is also a 

vexatious litigant. (§ 391, subd. (b)(3).) The term “litigation” as 

used in section 391, subdivision (b)(1), is broadly defined “as 

meaning ‘any civil action or proceeding, commenced, 

maintained or pending in any state or federal court.’ ” (Fink v. 

Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1170, see § 391, 

subd. (a).)

Section 391.7, subdivision (a), authorizes the court to 

“enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant 

from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in 

propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding 

justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is 

proposed to be filed.” 

“A court exercises its discretion in determining whether a 

person is a vexatious litigant.” (Bravo, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 219.) “An abuse of discretion occurs ‘where, considering all 

the relevant circumstances, the court has exceeded the bounds 

of reason[,] or it can fairly be said that no judge would 

reasonably make the same order under the same 

circumstances.’ ” (In re Marriage of Olson (1993) 

14 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.) On appeal, “[w]e uphold the court’s ruling 
6

if it is supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] . . . [W]e 

presume the order declaring a litigant vexatious is correct and 

imply findings necessary to support the judgment.” (Bravo, at 

p. 219.)

“ ‘In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply 

the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by 

legal analysis and citation to the record.’ ” (United Grand Corp. 

v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153

(United).) The appellate court is not required to develop an 

appellant’s arguments for him. (Ibid.) “We may and do 

‘disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by 

pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by 

which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to 

adopt.’ ” (Ibid.) An appellate court has no obligation to make an 

independent search of the record to find support for contentions 

on appeal. (Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 

241 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1406.)

It “is appellant’s burden to provide a reporter’s transcript

if ‘an appellant intends to raise any issue that requires 

consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior court . . .’

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b)), and it is the appellant who 

in the first instance may elect to proceed without a reporter’s

transcript (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.130(a)(4)).” (Sanowicz v. 

Bacal (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1034, fn. 5.) In an appeal

involving the abuse of discretion standard of review, a 

reporter’s transcript, or an agreed or settled statement of the 

proceedings is usually indispensable. (See, e.g., Vo. V. Las 

Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 448 

[“The absence of a record concerning what actually occurred at 

the trial precludes a determination that the trial court abused
7

its discretion”] (Vo); Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery

(2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 476, 487 [without reporter’s transcript or 

suitable substitute, appellant cannot demonstrate an award of 

attorney fees constituted an abuse of discretion].) That a party 

is in propria persona does not excuse compliance with these 

requirements. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 

984–985; Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 

536, 543.)

II. Analysis

We see nothing on the face of the trial court’s August 5, 

2021 order or in the record provided on appeal that would lead 

us to question whether Cono was provided with adequate notice

and an opportunity to demonstrate why he should not be 

declared a vexatious litigant. “[W]e presume the order 

declaring a litigant vexatious is correct and imply findings 

necessary to support the judgment.” (Bravo, supra, 

99 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.)

Cono’s appellate briefing does not present any cognizable 

legal arguments explaining how or why the trial court abused 

its discretion when it declared Cono a vexatious litigant under 

section 391, subdivision (b), and entered a pre-filing order 

against Cono under section 391.7. In addition, Cono fails to 

provide an adequate record to challenge the trial court’s 

exercise of discretion: the record on appeal does not include a 

reporter’s transcript, settled statement, or agreed statement as 

authorized by California Rules of Court, rules 8.134 and 8.137. 

Absent any cogent analysis, an adequate record, or citations to

support in the record provided, Cono has not carried his burden 
8

to demonstrate any error. (United, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 153.)

DISPOSITION

The August 5, 2021 orders declaring Leo Cono a vexatious 

litigant and prohibiting him from filing any new litigation in 

the courts of California without approval of the presiding justice 

or presiding judge of the court in which the action is to be filed, 

unless he is represented by an attorney, are affirmed. Each 

party shall bear their own costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.