Home | Noteworthy Public Disclosures
This judge is not acting as a neutral decision-maker — he is actively participating in the litigation he is supposed to be overseeing. On March 19, 2026, Judge Mark S. Borrell issued a minute order on his own authority initiating an Order to Show Cause to declare us “vexatious litigants,” without any noticed hearing or adversarial process. There was no hearing scheduled, no motion filed by any defendant, and no opportunity to be heard before the court set a path toward a statewide prefiling ban. That is not normal procedure — that is a judge initiating punitive action based on his own narrative of the case. At the same time, the order relies entirely on litigation history that Judge Borrell himself presided over, ruled on, and shaped. He is not reviewing someone else’s record — he is acting as both the source of the record and the judge of that record. This is the same judge I filed multiple CCP §170.1 disqualification challenges against. Instead of assigning those challenges out as required, he ruled on his own disqualification and denied them. In related cases, I exercised CCP §170.6 and successfully removed him from four matters. That already establishes that his continued involvement is not neutral or appropriate. Now he is using that same history — including rulings he made himself — to try to label us vexatious. That is not impartial adjudication. That is circular self-justification. It goes further. Judge Borrell is also a named defendant in our federal civil rights case involving the same underlying conduct and litigation pattern. That federal filing includes allegations of judicial misconduct, due process violations, and improper interference with court procedures — including actions taken without motion, without hearing, and outside standard authority. Among those issues: court process irregularities involving entries of default and procedural handling of filings that did not follow normal motion practice. These are not minor clerical issues — they go to whether the process itself is being controlled rather than adjudicated. Despite that, he continues to preside over related matters and now seeks to impose a statewide filing restriction based on those same disputed actions. At the same time, the court allows multiple law firms to appear and litigate despite serious legal capacity issues — including Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP, which has documented compliance problems, yet continues to represent parties. This is also an HOA dispute governed by the Davis-Stirling Act, which requires ADR before litigation. That requirement has been ignored, yet enforcement actions, liens, and court proceedings have continued anyway — all while being funded by HOA insurance and prosecuted through multiple law firms with overlapping representation and conflicts. And none of the underlying facts have been addressed: illegal liens were filed financial misconduct was raised the HOA’s own CPA admitted missing financial records and inability to complete a proper reserve analysis Instead of addressing those issues, the court is attempting to shut down the party raising them. This is not about losing a case. This is about a judge: ruling on his own disqualification, presiding over matters where he is a named defendant, initiating punitive proceedings without a hearing, and relying on his own prior rulings as justification to restrict access to the courts. That is a structural due process problem — not a disagreement with a ruling. If others have experienced similar conduct in Ventura County, especially involving this judge, you are not alone.
Comment: #23, Posted: 3/2026
His overweening attitude and malevolence is only outweighed by his disdain for the law.
Comment: #13, Posted: 1/2026
Judge Borrell can be smart and reasonable, but chooses not to be. His staff, the clerk and bailiff, are extremely rude, screaming and yelling. This is a courtroom that is a joke because of the clerk and bailiff.
Comment: #12, Posted: 1/2026