In any pending litigation, a “defendant” may move the court for an order declaring the “plaintiff” to be a vexatious litigant. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 391.1.)
The vexatious litigant statutes were first codified in 1963. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 391; Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 838, 841.) They “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.) The vexatious litigant provisions seek “to protect the court system and its resources as well as other litigants while at the same time providing a workable means by which a vexatious litigant may proceed with litigation.” (Id. at p. 696.)
Once a party has been declared a vexatious litigant, the court on its own motion or that of any party may enter a “prefiling” order prohibiting that party from filing new state court litigation in propria persona absent leave of the presiding judge where the litigation is proposed to be filed. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 391.7(a); In re R.H. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 678, 690.) After a prefiling order issues, the presiding judge shall permit the party to file further litigation “only if it appears the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 391.7(b); People v. Harrison (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 780, 785-786.) Thus, a person who is declared a vexatious litigant does not lose the right of access to the courts. (Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 220-221.)
“A court exercises its discretion in determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant.” (Holcomb v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1498-1499.) However, “[a]ny determination that a litigant is vexatious must comport with the intent and spirit of the vexatious litigant statute. The purpose of which is to address the problem created by the persistent and obsessive litigant who constantly has pending a number of groundless actions and whose conduct causes serious financial results to the unfortunate objects of his or her attacks and places an unreasonable burden on the courts.” (Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 970-71.)
“When considering a motion to declare a litigant vexatious, the court must weigh the evidence to decide whether the litigant is vexatious based on the statutory criteria.” (Goodrich v. Sierra Vista Reg'l Med. Ctr., 246 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1265 (2016).) The statute contemplates a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff qualifies as vexatious and instructs the court to require security if it finds plaintiff has no reasonable probability of prevailing. (McColm v. Westwood Park Assn. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1215-1216, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 288.)
A vexatious litigant is defined as a person who, in propria persona, does any of the following:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 391(b).)
In determining whether a litigant is vexatious, the court may not “mix and match” portions of each definition to reach a finding. (Holcomb v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1501.)
“What constitutes ‘repeatedly’ and ‘unmeritorious’... is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 971.) “While there is no bright-line rule as to what constitutes ‘repeatedly,’ most cases affirming the vexatious litigant designation involve situations where litigants have filed dozens of motions either during the pendency of an action or relating to the same judgment. (Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 225.) “Not all failed motions can support a vexatious litigant designation. The repeated motions must be so devoid of merit and be so frivolous that they can be described as a ‘flagrant abuse of the system,’ have ‘no reasonable probability of success,’ lack ‘reasonable or probable cause or excuse’ and are clearly meant to ‘abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants.’” (Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 972.)
In the view of the Court, the vexatious litigant statute does not encompass proceedings of a special nature, such as restraining orders; while restraining orders are technically civil actions, the limited purpose and scope of restraining orders do not implicate the purpose of the vexatious litigant statute, as described above. (Compare Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 970-71; with Byers v. Cathcart (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 805, 811.) However, cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by a pro se plaintiff count for the purpose of the vexatious litigant statute because they still burden the judicial system and the target of the litigation. (Tokerud v. Capitol Bank Sacramento (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 775, 779.)
A plaintiff found to be a vexatious litigant may be required to furnish security for the reasonable expenses of a defendant in order to proceed with the matter. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 391.3; Childs v. PaineWebber Incorporated (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 982, 993, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 93.) Security is “for the benefit of the moving defendant” and in “such amount and within such time as the court shall fix.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 391.3; McColm v. Westwood Park Assn. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1215-1216, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 288.) A trial court may “weigh the evidence when deciding whether to require security.” (Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP (2007) 40 Cal.4th 740, 784.) “At the hearing the court shall consider such evidence, written or oral, as may be material to the ground of the motion.” (Id.)
Defendant’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security to be Posted. On February 13, 2018 plaintiff filed an action against defendant Musso asserting causes of action for fraud and common counts. Defendant moves to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the following grounds: plaintiff has commenced and maintained in pro per 11 cases within the past few years...
..was dismissed on January 18, 2018 after the demurrer to the 2nd amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Defendant requests that plaintiff be required to post security in the amount of $10,000 and for the court issue a pre-filing order that requires plaintiff to seek leave of the presiding judge prior to filing any new litigation in pro per, to predicate future actions on posting s...
Aug 09, 2018
El Dorado County, CA
This case is on calendar for two matters. First, Kaiser Health Plan, Inc., et al. (“Petitioners”) petition the Court to confirm a final arbitration award against Mustapha Ariel (“Respondent”), entered by arbitrator Hon. Richard J. McAdams (Ret.) on January 17, 2017. Petitioners bring this petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1285 and on the grounds that Respondent’s claim against P...
..391(b)(1) and (2) and on the grounds that Respondent has initiated six separate arbitration actions against Petitioners arising from the same underlying facts and that in five of those actions, the arbitrators issued final determinations against Respondent. Respondent has not opposed this motion. Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award i...
Apr 11, 2018
Sonoma County, CA
Tentative Rulings on OSCs re Vexatious Litigant Finding Ewing v. Taylor, Case No. 2017-22988 Ewing v. Parker, Case No. 2017-28312 Ewing v. Monster Solar, Case No. 2016-38027 December 1, 2017, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. Since June 1, 2012, Mr. Ewing has filed 41 civil actions in this Court. Six of those cases were removed to Federal Court, one was transferred to...
..al Court, at least 3 of which have been adversely determined against him. These circumstances gave rise to the present OSCs. Courts all over California have been buffeted over the past decade by budget cuts imposed by the other branches of government. In the San Diego Superior Court, this has given rise to courtroom closures, layoffs, and other severe reductions in services. As a matter of self-p...
Nov 28, 2017
San Diego County, CA
HEARING ON MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT FILED BY ALI KERACHI, CALIFORNIA RT PIZZA GROUP, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendants Ali Kerachi and California RT Pizza Group, Inc.’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant is denied. California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b) defines “vexatious litigant” as follows: “[it] means a person who does any of the following: (...
..ed against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defe...
May 02, 2019
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT DE WANA BALLOU, Plaintiff, vs. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: 19STCV06877 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND FOR ORDER REQUIRING POSTING OF A $4,252.50 SECURITY FOR COSTS AND FOR PRE-FILING ORDER Date: May 10, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m...
..s litigant, for an order requiring Plaintiff to post security in the amount of $4,252.50 as a condition of proceeding with the instant action, and for a pre-filing order requiring Plaintiff to obtain the approval of the presiding judge before commencing any new litigation in pro per. JUDICIAL NOTICE Moving Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. DISCUSSION A vexatious litigant is o...
May 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Tarver v Zone Funding Demurrer; Motion to Strike; Motion to Declare Plaintiff Vexatious Litigant Calendar: 09 Case No.: 19GDCV01068 Hearing Date: December 20, 2019 Action Filed: August 21, 2019 Trial Date: Not Set MP: Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; California Reconveyance Co. RP: N/A ALLEGATIONS: The instant action arises from Plaintiff Tanya Tarver (“Plaintiff”) contesting th...
..1) Wrongful Foreclosure; (2) Negligence; (3) Violation of 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq; (4) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200; and (5) Quiet Title. PRESENTATION: Defendants filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike on October 15, 2019, and the motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant on October 23, 2019. No opposition or reply briefs have been received. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants...
Dec 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
1-25 of 2565 results
Nov 24, 2020
Placer County, CA
Nov 24, 2020
Placer County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.