What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal is dismissed as a successive petition
Petition for Removal of the Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Disqualification
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold October 16, 2025.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The petition is dismissed as a successive petition seeking the same relief, which is not allowed.
From the decision · page 1We have not received an answer from defendant. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the petition as it is a successive petition. A petitioning party cannot attack an Appeals Board decision through another petition seeking, in substance, the same relief. Successive petitions are not allowed and may constitute frivolous or bad faith conduct. (See Crowe Glass Company v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal. App. 287; Navarro v. A&A Farming (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299§ 300 (Appeals Board en banc)). A party aggrieved by an Appeals Board decision on disqualification must petition for a writ of review to the Court of Appeal. However, it would appear that the time for applicant to seek review of the October 16, 2025 order denying disqualification has passed. Finally, as to the merits, the October 16, 2025 Order did not declare applicant a vexatious litigant. Instead, it warned applicant that the continued filing of frivolous petitions in the future may lead to a hearing to determine whether applicant is proceeding as a vexatious litigant. No