What is an Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff/Petitioner from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List?

Removal from the Vexatious Litigant List

Pursuant to CCP § 391.8, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order under CCP § 391.7 may file an application to vacate the pre-filing order and remove his or her name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to pre-filing orders. (CCP § 391.8(a).)

Factor for Removal: Material Change in the Facts

The pre-filing order may be vacated and removal of a vexatious litigant’s name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants be ordered only upon a showing of a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order. (CCP § 391.8(c).)

Evidence

While a vexatious litigant determination may be erasable, erasure requires substantial evidence that the vexatious litigant has mended his ways or conduct. (Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 77, 83 (noting a “decent interval-certainly no less than four years” would be a sufficient passing of time for the litigant in that case to seek to have a prefiling order lifted after his unsuccessful appeal).)

Substantial evidence that bears on whether a vexatious litigant has mended his ways is not some success in litigation, but evidence that he has given up suing people as a way of life. (Id. at 93-94.) Such evidence includes proof of a propensity for honesty, of efforts at obtaining gainful employment, of genuine remorse for the costs of litigation inflicted on the defendants who were the object of previous lawsuits, and of some genuine effort at restitution toward the previous victims of his litigation, including actual payment of cost orders made by the courts in prior litigation. (Ibid.)

In seeking to vacate a prefiling order, the litigant cannot challenge the propriety of the court’s imposition of that prefiling order. (In re Marriage of Rifkin and Carty (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 1339, 1347.)

See also Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.

Useful Rulings on Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff/Petitioner from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List

Recent Rulings on Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff/Petitioner from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List

ALEXANDER C. BAKER VS. CLARA VESELIZA BAKER

Department 1 is the designated department for handling certain vexatious litigant matters in the Los Angeles Superior Court, (CCP §§ 391.7(e); 391.8(a)), and CCP § 391.7(c) permits the dismissal of an action. The court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the March 20, 2020 order and it is not void. (Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495–496 (“A trial court has no statutory power under section 473, subdivision (d) to set aside a judgment that is not void.”).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

It broadly cites to Code of Civil Procedure sections 391 to 391.8 and indicates that “additional evidence may show that Bacchus also violated CCP 391(b)(1).” (Motion, p. 2:2-7.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

MANKARUSE V. RAYTHEON COMPANY

In any event, the proper way to vacate a prefiling order is under Code of Civil Procedure §391.8. In order to vacate the prefiling order, plaintiff must make a showing that there is “a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order.” Id. at subd.(c). Plaintiff has made no such showing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

XXXXXXXXXX VS XXXXXXXXXX

. §§391-391.8) was enacted to curb misuse of the court system by self-represented litigants who repeatedly file baseless lawsuits or attempt to relitigate issues that were previously determined against them, and who thereby waste the time and resources of the court system and other litigants. (Shalant v Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1169; Marriage of Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 1339, 1345.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2019

ALEKSANDR BIBLE VS GEICO INDEM

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND REQUEST FOR SECURITY AND PRE-FILING ORDER (CCP §§ 391.1-391.8) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Geico Indemnity Company, LLC’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Request for Security and Pre-Filing Order is DENIED. I.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LEON SANDERS VS JAMES D WALKER ET AL

(CCP § 473(b)), nor that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the vexatious order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order (CCP § 391.8). The motion to dismiss is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALVIN E WILLIAMS ET AL VS BENTLEY MOTORS INC ET AL

(CCP § 391.8(a).) Request to Enter Judgment Plaintiffs Alvin E. Williams and Judith M. Brown-Williams once again move the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) to enter a final judgment based upon a July 2, 2007 jury verdict, against Bentley Motors, Inc. and Rusnak Pasadena in BC342574 in the total amount of $100,394,833,600.00.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

MIRANDA, DAVID R VS SOTO SR, FRANK

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Prefiling Order Issued on June 10, 2016 and Removal of Vexatious Litigant’s Name from Judicial Council’s List of Vexatious Litigants Pursuant to CCP § 391.8 and CCP § 377.20 on April 15, 2019. To date, Plaintiff has neither obtained a prefiling order, nor posted security. Accordingly, the motion is placed off calendar.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AROGANT HOLLYWOOD ET AL VS GEORGE PATEL ET AL

Fairchild’s motions to vacate their prefiling orders and remove their names from the Judicial Council’s Vexatious Litigant List pursuant to CCP § 391.8. The court’s order noted that Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild may not file another application for such relief until at least 12 months after the date of that order. (CCP § 391.8(b).) On February 28, 2019, Ms. Fairchild filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s January 3, 2019 order. However, on March 4, 2019, Ms.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

ETTA HINDRA VS MRS JOYCE ESSEX HARVEY

(CCP § 391.8(a).) Ms. Hindra reserved a hearing for a motion to vacate prefiling order in Department 1 for February 14, 2019. Ms. Hindra has not filed any documents relating to this hearing, and the time to file documents for a February 14, 2019 hearing has passed. (CCP § 1005.) Accordingly, Etta Hindra’s motion to vacate prefiling order is taken OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

AROGANT HOLLYWOOD ET AL VS GEORGE PATEL ET AL

(See CCP § 391.8(c).) As set forth in CCP § 391.8(b), Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild may not file another application for this relief until at least 12 months after the date of this order. Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

MONTIEL V. GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

. § 391.8(c). Plaintiff had failed to show both (1) a material change in facts since the order was entered against her and (2) that justice would be served by vacating the order.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2018

BISCHOF, DAVE VS ADUT, ANNA

Legal Standard “The vexatious litigant statutes (§§ 391–[391.8] ) are designed to curb misuse of the court system by those persistent and obsessive litigants who, repeatedly litigating the same issues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of the court system and other litigants.” (In re Marriage of Rifkin and Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1345.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FUDGE VS. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, AND ITS PLANNING COMMISSION

As a result, the Court awards Petitioner attorney fees totaling $126,850 (Calculated as follows: $700 x 47.8 hours = $33,460 for attorney Hsaio; $400 x 391.8 hours = $156,720 for attorney Hofer. Total fees of $190,180 x .667 = $126,850). (2)PETITIONER’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS Petitioner’s motion to tax the City’s costs is GRANTED in the amount of $8,812.69. The City claims costs in the amount of $13,219.03 for preparation of the supplemental administrative record.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2018

FUDGE VS. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, AND ITS PLANNING COMMISSION

As a result, the Court awards Petitioner attorney fees totaling $126,850 (Calculated as follows: $700 x 47.8 hours = $33,460 for attorney Hsaio; $400 x 391.8 hours = $156,720 for attorney Hofer. Total fees of $190,180 x .667 = $126,850). (2)PETITIONER’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS Petitioner’s motion to tax the City’s costs is GRANTED in the amount of $8,812.69. The City claims costs in the amount of $13,219.03 for preparation of the supplemental administrative record.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2018

CLARK VS. CLARK FAMILY TRUST

HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE PRE-FILING ORDER & REMOVE FROM LIST FILED BY DIDDO CLARK * TENTATIVE RULING: * This matter has been transferred to Presiding Judge Jill Fannin pursuant to CCP 391.8(a). Judge Fannin has taken the matter under submission and will issue an order without the need for a hearing.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2018

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GENTHNER V. FIRST HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER OF FRESNO, INC.

Plaintiff also appears not to have successfully sought to set aside the determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §391.8. Therefore, this Court should not consider attacks on the propriety of the determination that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. With respect to the issue of the delay in filing this claim, Plaintiff claims that she is the victim of a conspiracy, and made many attempts to obtain a consultation with a doctor regarding the “foreign body” in her abdomen.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GENTHNER V. FIRST HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER OF FRESNO, INC.

Plaintiff also appears not to have successfully sought to set aside the determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §391.8. Therefore, this Court should not consider attacks on the propriety of the determination that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. With respect to the issue of the delay in filing this claim, Plaintiff claims that she is the victim of a conspiracy, and made many attempts to obtain a consultation with a doctor regarding the “foreign body” in her abdomen.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GENTHNER V. FIRST HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER OF FRESNO, INC.

Plaintiff also appears not to have successfully sought to set aside the determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §391.8. Therefore, this Court should not consider attacks on the propriety of the determination that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. With respect to the issue of the delay in filing this claim, Plaintiff claims that she is the victim of a conspiracy, and made many attempts to obtain a consultation with a doctor regarding the “foreign body” in her abdomen.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

LOPEZ VS. LANG

Under CCP section 391.8, the court may vacate "a prefiling order and order removal of a vexatious litigant's name from the Judicial Council's list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders upon a showing of a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order." (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.8.) Plaintiff is on the court's vexatious litigant list, but there is no prefiling order to be vacated.

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GAYE WELCH-BROWN VS STATE OF CA . ET AL

. § 391.8(b) (emphasis added).) Accordingly, California Code of Civil Procedure § 391.8(b) requires the denial of Plaintiff's so-called "renewed" motion of July 24, 2014, and, to the extent they were not clearly ruled upon in the Court's order of June 23, 2014, the denial of requests made in Plaintiff's motion of June 16, 2014.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2014

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.