What is a Vexatious Litigant?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Declare a Vexatious Litigant

Recent Rulings on Motion to Declare a Vexatious Litigant

MELODY CHACKER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Bank N.A., and NDSC (collectively, Defendants) now move for Plaintiff to be declared a vexatious litigant. Legal Standard A party may be deemed a vexatious litigant upon a showing that the party repeatedly files unmeritorious papers, conducts unnecessary discovery or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. (CCP § 391(b)(3).) Alternatively, the decision can be based upon the ground that the party repeatedly relitigates finally determined litigation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant Defendants SPS and US Bank (hereinafter, Defendants) move for (1) an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and (2) a prefiling order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any new litigation without permission.[1] CCP section 391(b) sets forth the definition of a “vexatious litigant.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL VS CANDACE HOWELL, ET AL.

Rosenstiel as a vexatious litigant. (Def.’s RJN, Ex. B.) Subsequently Mr. Rosenstiel’s attorneys have filed three additional cases in this Court district, two of which relate explicitly to the title and possession to the Riderwood Property. Judge Alarcon has apparently declined to relate the cases. Nevertheless, pending a trial in which the actual ownership of the Riderwood Property will be examined, this Court should not proceed with these cases.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANNIEL MADRID VS CANDACE HOWELL

BC608565) declaring Rosenstiel a vexatious litigant; (G) a copy of the injunction filed with the court on 3/1/19 in BC628570; and (H) the register of actions in Zielke v. Rosenstiel (LASC Case No. BC628570). The requests for judicial notice is granted, but the truths of the matter stated therein will not be subject to judicial notice. 2. Discussion The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and requests for judicial notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

OSHEEN HAGHNAZARIAN ET AL VS ALAN ROMERO ET AL

MOTION TO DECLARE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Romero moves to declare all Plaintiffs in this action vexatious litigants. (Motion at p. 2.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant and entered a prefiling order. On March 20, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

AASIR AZZARMI VS DELTA AIR LINES, INC, ET AL.

On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant and entered a prefiling order. On February 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to entire action. On March 20, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BEN ZAKARYA, ET AL. VS TRUMAN SYSTEM, LLC, ET AL.

However, Defendant is correct that Shin was declared a vexatious litigant, necessarily requiring him to have filed at least seven cases in pro per. (CCP § 391(b).) Upon closer scrutiny, Shin is involved in at least 20 other cases as a pro per plaintiff in Los Angeles County.[1] (See Shin Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Therefore, Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1). CCP § 391(b)(3) The Motion also suggests that Plaintiff should be deemed a vexatious litigant under subdivision (b)(3) of section 391. Unlike Code of Civil Procedure section 391 subdivisions (b)(1), subdivision (b)(3) does not specify either a time frame or quantity of actions necessary to support a vexatious litigant finding under that section.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

TONY TALEFF VS MARCIA LYNN SATTGAST TALEFF

In addition, Defendant’s notice of motion did not refer to the relevant authority to declare a party a vexatious litigant. CCP § 391 et seq. The Court further notes that Defendant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to establish that Plaintiff should be declared a vexatious litigant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

STEVEN YEARWOOD VS THE GROUNDLINGS THEATER AND SCHOOL

Although the court is aware that plaintiff has recently been declared a vexatious litigant by Judge Hammock in an unrelated action, his status as such as not influenced any of the court’s rulings in this case. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling, in addition to separate notice of the ruling in the related case. Date: June 26, 2020 Honorable Stuart M. Rice Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HANCOCK VS. SERVICELINK

HEARING ON MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT FILED BY FREMONT BANK * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a motion to declare Plaintiff Anne Hancock (“Plaintiff” or “Hancock”) a vexatious litigant. Defendant Fremont Bank (“Defendant” or “Fremont Bank”) brings the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391 et seq. Plaintiff attempted to file a request to vacate the motion in response; although it was rejected by the clerk it was served on Defendants and the Court has reviewed it.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL

To the extent that Real Parties argue that Rudisill is a vexatious litigant who will be deterred from filing further frivolous actions, this assertion is controverted by Rudisill’s evidence demonstrating that the majority of her claims were successful and meritorious. See Rudisill Decl. Real Parties’ success in overturning their sanctions did not confer a significant benefit on the public or a large class of persons. 4.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DILLARD J MCNELEY VS MCDONALD'S AN CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS, AN INDIVIDUAL CO.

., Case No. 19STCV31331 McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.’s Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and for Entry of Pre-Filing Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Filing any New Litigation. TENTATIVE RULING McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.’s Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and for Entry of Pre-Filing Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Filing any New Litigation is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES SKADOWSKI VS NATURE MEDIC, LLC, ET AL.

Moreover, Plaintiff has represented to the Court under penalty of perjury that the instant case is not a class action, [2] which, in conjunction with Plaintiff’s status as a vexatious litigant, raises serious credibility issues that would hinder his serving as a class representative. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the class action claim is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SEVILLA VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES

Before doing so, however, the County should consider whether petitioner qualifies as a vexatious litigant. Any motion seeking such a designation would have to be filed and heard before judgment is entered.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MELISSA P. DIAZ VS WALMART INC.

The hearing on the Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Requiring Plaintiff to Post Security is CONTINUED to 5/5/2020 at 1:30 p.m. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the need for social distancing, and a state of emergency having been declared by Governor Newsom, the court finds good cause to continue the hearing on this motion to 5/5/2020. On the Court’s own motion, the trial in this matter is continued to 8/11/2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

J. SISNEROS (F17317) VS P. KAHLON, C.H.C.F.

s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Require Security set for March 17, 2020 is continued to April 14, 2020. Appearance is required. The Court to issue Order to Warden to Make Inmate Available by Telephone for hearing. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

HSU VS. SCHREIBER

Hsu is a vexatious litigant. This case was dismissed by order filed May 24, 2017. Mr. Hsu may not file any additional pleadings in this case already adjudicated case without obtaining prior approval from the Presiding Judge.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

DEROSSETT VS. AMERICAN GLASSETCHING SYSTEMS

As to Thorne’s request to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, since judgment has already been entered, there is no reason to make such a determination and the issue of posting security is moot.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

ROMINE V. NINTH CIRCUIT

PaineWebber Incorporated (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 982, 993, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 93.) ¶ The vexatious litigant scheme recently was synopsized in McColm v. Westwood Park Assn. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1215-1216, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 288: ¶ "The vexatious litigant statute authorizes a 'defendant' to bring a motion to require a 'plaintiff' to furnish security.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

TITO ACE THOMAS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The court dismissed that case on February 23, 2018 and cautioned Plaintiff that if he continued to file duplicative complaints that required the court to abstain for the same reasons, the court may recommend the entry of a vexatious litigant order and the imposition of pre-filing restrictions against Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

SHONG-CHING TONG VS DAVIND HUANG, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

B [indicating plaintiff is a vexatious litigant]) and chose to press forward with the motion even after his counsel withdrew, including at the 2/7/20 motion hearing when plaintiff pro per continued to argue the original merits of the demurrer. Indeed, in accordance with CCP § 128(f)(1)(B), on 1/2/20, defendants served a copy of the instant motion for sanctions prior to filing it, but plaintiff chose not to withdraw his then-pending motion for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LONDT VS MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE

The Court directs Plaintiff's notice to the vexatious litigant statute and, in particular, the definition of "vexatious litigant" set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §391, subdivisions (b)(2) and (b)(3). Moving party to give notice of this court's ruling.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ELKINS VS STARWOOD RETAIL PARTNERS

MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA ELKINS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT; FOR AN ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY; AND FOR A PREFILING ORDER by defendants Star-West Parkway Mall, LP and Starwood Retail Property Management, LLC is GRANTED. Request for Judicial Notice is granted. To the extent plaintiff attempted to dismiss this action after this motion was filed, the ability to declare an individual a vexatious litigant survives. (Pittman v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 30     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.