Whether a case without a plaintiff may proceed against persons mis-alleged to be defendants

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a case without a plaintiff may proceed against persons mis-alleged to be , defendants by attorneys who are unauthorized to represent any plaintiff, said misdefendants being subjected thereby to outrageous fees and expenses, exceeding . $365,000, and to removal of their dog without any redress by the California trial, appellate, and supreme courts, because a dog barked at an intruder whose purpose was retaliation against his owners for their complaints about unremedied defects in the construction of their home. . _ Whether counsel not authorized by the Members of a Home Owners Association to be hired and not authorized by them to file a suit on behalf of the HOA may do so when the HOA's Declaration and By-laws require that such authorization be by Members’ majority vote only. . ; : Whether alleged defendants in such a suit may be declared vexatious litigants solely for apprizing the Courts that said attorneys and case have not been authorized as required by the HOA's Declaration and By-laws and requesting that the case be dismissed therefor. Whether such alleged defendants must continue sufferance in such a case after their Motions to Dismiss on grounds that counsel and case have not been authorized by the HOA Members as required by the HOA Declaration and By-laws have been 2 : denied without right to appeal thereupon, according to the Orders of an Appellate Justice. ; : Whether the Trial Court Judge may default both alleged defendants when only one such defendant declined to appear for a deposition after Motions to Dismiss were filed so to avoid such appearance being deemed a waiver of the premises of said Motions that there was no case authorized by a plaintiff. Whether said default renders the case unappealable as asserted by an Appellate Justice, citing inapposite cases instead of those that permit appeals where the matters at issue are jurisdictional considerations and basic defects in the pleadings. Whether it is proper for an Appellate Justice to have usurped the prerogatives of the other Appellate Court Justices in deciding herself the Appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration En Banc after designating herself Acting Presiding Judge.