The California Supreme Court held long ago -- like, a year ago -- that the vexatious litigant statute doesn't apply to defendants who file an appeal when they've been sued (and lost) as a defendant.
Now, a year later, the Court revises and reposts its opinion to revise the counsel listing page. As far as I can tell, the only change is to redact -- in big black marks on the last page -- the address of the vexatious litigant at issue, Aleyamma John.
Okay, I guess. A little unusual. It's not like the address gets published anyway. Moreover, it's not like Dr. Google forgets. It'll always be around.
Moreover, some might think that having the address float out there serves a public purpose. If only because, after reading the opinion and underlying facts, I doubt that a landlord would be especially excited about renting to the vexatious litigant at issue -- something the landlord could learn about with a quick internet search. So you might want to leave that address in, if only so someone looking up the person could make sure they have the correct "Aleyamma John".
Oh, and it's not like the address is really private information anyway. It's not John's home address. It looks like it's actually the address of the Alhambra Post Office -- i.e., a disguised P.O. Box.
Now, deleting the litigant's (apparent) home phone number; well, that just makes sense. Not sure why it took a year for that to happen. But okay.
