What is a Vexatious Litigant?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Declare a Vexatious Litigant

Recent Rulings on Motion to Declare a Vexatious Litigant

STEPHEN M. FELDMAN, INC., A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION VS ADELA GREGORY

Plaintiff has brought evidence that Plaintiff has been listed as a vexatious litigant, according to Orders prohibiting future filings entered through October 10, 2020. (See Feldman Decl., ¶ 14, Exh. F (Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List).) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has been adjudicated a vexatious litigant and thus may not file any motions such as the instant motion to vacate default and quash service of summons.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

GROSS V. WESTPARK CORTE BELLA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" over Patrol One because the Court improperly granted Patrol One's motion to set aside the default while the case was stayed due to Defendant Westpark Corte Bella Community Association's motion for an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff did not make this assertion prior to the hearing on the motion.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

PRIMO DEJESUS VS GER JONES, ET AL.

CASE NUMBER: 19SMCV01893 MOTION: Motion to declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant HEARING DATE: 11/17/2020 LEGAL STANDARD The statutory scheme for vexatious litigants is enacted at Code of Civil Procedure Sections 391 to 391.7. The vexatious litigant statutes were created “to curb the misuse of the court system by those acting in propria persona who repeatedly relitigate the same issues.” (In re Bittaker (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STROJNIK V. SASHI GROUP LLC, ET AL.

Footnote 1: Moving defendants also request that the Court use its inherent authority and its powers under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 to enter a pre-filing order and determine that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. However, SHR has moved to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant—the hearing for the motion is scheduled for December 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

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

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WILLIAM POWERS, JR. V. DONALD JENSEN, ET AL.

The burden is on the moving party to show Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. (Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 640.) And the trial court will exercise its discretion in determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant. (Id. at p. 637.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

KENNETH ADLER, ET AL. VS SHIRLEE LYNN BLISS

(c) The clerk may not file any litigation presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the vexatious litigant first obtains an order from the presiding justice or presiding judge permitting the filing.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the court’s September 1, 2020 granting Defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.’s motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. CCP § 1008(a). The instant motion was filed on September 4, 2020. The motion was timely filed under Section 1008(a) However, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied because Plaintiff failed to provide new or different facts or circumstances to justify reconsideration of the Court’s prior order.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOBE VS. 2908 OCEAN LLC

Motion to Declare Party a Vexatious Litigant filed by 2908 Ocean LLC Defendant 2908 Ocean LLC’s Motion to Declare Albert Jobe and Shirley Jobe, and each of them, a Vexatious Litigant is DENIED. See CCP §391. MP argues that in pro per Plaintiffs, Albert Jobe and Shirley Jobe qualify as vexatious litigants under the definitions provided in CCP§391(b)(2), and (3).

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

ANTRANIK KEVORKIAN VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPT.

DISCUSSION Defendants move for an order to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and to require Plaintiff to post a bond. First, with respect to Defendants’ request that Plaintiff be deemed a vexatious litigant, as acknowledged by Defendants and the Court’s judicial notice of Defendants’ documents, Plaintiff has already been deemed a vexatious litigant. As such, this request is moot.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GROSS V. WESTPARK CORTE BELLA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Before responses to the discovery were due, however, Westpark Corte Bella Community Association served a motion for an order to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (See ROA 278 [served on April 21, 2020].) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.6, "litigation was stayed" until 10 days after the vexatious litigant motion was denied. The stay expired on September 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

HTTP://WWW.SCSCOURT.ORG (FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY)

The motion to declare plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant is CONTINUED to 29 October 2020 at 9:00 AM in this department to be heard in connection with a similar motion in action 19CV345499. ___________________________ _____________________________________________ DATED: HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

MADELINE YVETTE DAVIS VS CLEAR RECON CORP. BKA ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP

Motion for Order to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant Defendant moves for an order to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and for an order to prohibit Plaintiff from filing any new action in pro per without first obtaining a pre-filing order from the presiding justice or presiding judge. CCP § 391.7. Defendant has sufficiently established that Plaintiff has commenced at least five litigations in pro per in the preceding seven years which have been adversely determined against her. CCP § 391(b)(1).

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BONILLA V MARIN COUNTY

The complain fails to state a cause of action, as the complaint barred by failure to comply with Tort Claim Act, Plaintiff cannot challenge Marin’s vexatious litigant order in this court, and the County o Marin is not a proper party; the complaint is uncertain; and these defects cannot be cured b amendment. The Clerk is directed to dismiss the action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

CAVIC VS. WREC LIDO VENTURE, LLC

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate 2/26/2013 Vexatious Litigant Plaintiff Danny Cavic’s (“Danny”) Application to Set Aside and Vacate the 02/26/13, Vexatious Litigant Pre-filing Order (“Application”) is DENIED without prejudice. Danny failed to properly serve defendant WREC Lido Venture, LLC, dba Lido Marina Management (“Defendant”). The Proof of Service attached to the Application states Defendant was mail served by sending a copy to attorney Jeffrey N.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

SUPERIOR COURT VS. YEVGENIY BABICHEVDATE OCTOBER TIME AM LINE NUMBER

The motion of the Kitanoff entities to declare plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant is reset to 29 October 2020 at 9:00 AM in this Department to be heard along with the similar motion filed by the Attorney General. ___________________________ _____________________________________________ DATED: HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

NERO VS CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Plaintiff's motion to be removed from the Vexatious Litigant List is off calendar. Plaintiff failed to file any motion papers. Moreover, there is a pending appeal. The Court has not yet received the appellate court's Remittitur.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

As an initial matter, this motion is not brought by a defendant to declare a plaintiff a vexatious litigant, but is brought by a plaintiff to declare a defendant a vexatious litigant, which does not appear to be contemplated by the statute.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

KIDECKEL VS LEMONADE INSURANCE HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR (1) B.KIDECKEL (2)REQ FURNISH SECURTIY (3) PRE FILING - VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

Here, the moving papers and supporting documents set forth the elements required to establish that Plaintiff Brent Kideckel is a vexatious litigant under multiple subsections of Section 391.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

JAMES SKADOWSKI VS NATURE MEDIC, LLC, ET AL.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. The court further finds there is no reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail in the instant action for the reasons stated above. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff James Skadowski aka James Shin is declared a vexatious litigant. Per Code of Civil Procedure § 391.6 the instant action is stayed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CAVIC VS. WREC LIDO VENTURE, LLC

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate 2/26/2013 Vexatious Litigant This matter is continued to 10/9/2020. Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

LOVE VS BLANCO JR

Defendant has failed to set forth an evidentiary basis upon which the Plaintiff may be classified as a vexatious litigant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

SMITH VS VINKOV

The clerk is directed to reinstate the Motion to Deem Defendant a Vexatious Litigant. The clerk is directed to provide the Motion date for Plaintiff who will provide notice of the motion. The court will not entertain oral argument.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

ELLE BI VS TONY E. LUND

Motion to Deem Plaintiff Elle Bi a Vexatious Litigant Defendant moves the Court for an order deeming Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, requiring Plaintiff to furnish security in this action, and issuing a pre-filing order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any new litigation without leave of court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.