Motion to Declare a Vexatious Litigant in California

A vexatious litigant determination may, or may not, be erasable, [but] if it is erasable, erasure requires substantial evidence that the vexatious litigant has mended his ways or conduct. ( Luckett, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at 83.)

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.

Pursuant to CCP §391.7, once a person is declared a vexatious litigant, that person must obtain a pre-filing order prior to commencing any further litigation. §391.7 provides that, if a person is a vexatious litigant, the Clerk shall not accept any complaint from the person for filing without a valid pre-filing order. If, however, the Clerk mistakenly accepts the person’s complaint for filing, then the defendant must file a notice of vexatious litigant status, which notice stays the action.

Erasure of the vexatious litigant designation requires substantial evidence that the vexatious litigant has mended his ways or conduct. ( Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 83.) Some factors that bear on whether a vexatious litigant has mended his ways include: First, it goes without saying the applicant must show a propensity for honesty in his or her application.

In Bravo the trial court granted a vexatious litigant motion filed after judgment had been entered. On appeal the plaintiff argued a lawsuit must be pending at the time a party files a vexatious litigant motion. As Pittman correctly points out, the case is distinguishable because the Fourth District held the matter was still pending when the vexatious litigant order was issued due to the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

(Id. at 972) It is understandable that Defendant believes this case is an example of an unmeritorious action that justifies Plaintiff being declared a vexatious litigant. However, “a person is not a vexatious litigant unless a court has found that he comes within the definitions in section 391.” (Roston v. Edwards (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 842, 847) Here, there is not yet substantial evidence to justify a determination that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under CCP §391(b)(1) or (3).

Erasure of the vexatious litigant designation requires substantial evidence that the vexatious litigant has mended his ways or conduct. ( Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 83.) Some factors that bear on whether a vexatious litigant has mended his ways include: First, it goes without saying the applicant must show a propensity for honesty in his or her application.

In the Courts ruling on the denial, the Court found that there was no basis to remove Plaintiffs vexatious litigant designation because Plaintiffs have continued to file motions that lack merit. They were also not supposed to file any additional motions due to the vexatious litigant designation, but they continued to do so. CCP §391.8(a) allows a vexatious litigant to file an application to vacate the prefiling order and remove their name from the Judicial Councils list of vexatious litigants.

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.) DISCUSSION Defendant argues that the court should deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and cites nine cases in support.

Per CCP 391, John Priatko meets the definition of a vexatious litigant because he has filed at least eight cases in the past seven years, all of which were terminated by judgment against him or terminated with prejudice because they had been pending for an unreasonable amount of time. The filing of cases in a non-California court is within the ambit of the vexatious litigant statute.

Vexatious Litigant Plaintiff argues that he was prevailing party in cases where he was the defendant and was the prevailing party in all “completed litigation, finally determined,” where he was the plaintiff. (Opposition, p. 4.) A litigation is finally determined adversely to a plaintiff within the meaning of the vexatious litigant law if he does not win the action or proceeding he began. (Garcia, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 406.)

Erasure of the vexatious litigant designation requires substantial evidence that the vexatious litigant has mended his ways or conduct. ( Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 83.) Some factors that bear on whether a vexatious litigant has mended his ways include: First, it goes without saying the applicant must show a propensity for honesty in his or her application.

On August 22, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice Under CCP section 391.7 of Action by Vexatious Litigant and asked the Court to take judicial notice of the March 25, 2008 order in the 2008 Case. Plaintiff’s name is currently on the vexatious litigant list pursuant to the March 25, 2008 order. (See http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/vexlit.pdf (“Vexatious Litigant List”), current as of 1/3/17.)

However, Cheng cites no authority that allows the court to direct the State Bar of California to include the Plaintiff in the States vexatious litigant list. Conclusion Defendant Paul P. Chengs Motion to Declare Plaintiff Young Chow Dai a Vexatious Litigant is GRANTED except as to an order directing Plaintiff be placed on State Bars Vexatious Litigant list. Moving party to give notice.

Nevertheless, the Court, on its own, will take judicial notice of the “VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST”, which is available for the public on the California Courts website. [2] The heading on each page of the list states: VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LIST From Prefiling Orders Received from California Courts Prepared and Maintained by the Judicial Council of California (Orders prohibiting future filings entered through June 1, 2021) On page 66 of the list, Scott Eric Rosenstiel is listed as a vexatious litigant,

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.

Per CCP 391, John Priatko meets the definition of a vexatious litigant because he has filed at least eight cases in the past seven years, all of which were terminated by judgment against him or terminated with prejudice because they had been pending for an unreasonable amount of time. The filing of cases in a non-California court is within the ambit of the vexatious litigant statute.

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 COURT 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.

Finally, Defendant has not presented any evidence that Plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant in any state or federal court of record as defined under C.C.P. § 391(b)(4). The court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff Melva Fonteno is a vexatious litigant as defined under CCP § 391(b). The motion is DENIED. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.

On August 1, 2019, Department 1 received a request for an OSC from Tina Davis who claims she is not the Tina Davis listed on the vexatious litigant list. Department 1 set an OSC Re: Determination that Tina Davis is not the Person Listed on the Vexatious Litigant List for September 5, 2019.

.] [¶] The statute defines a ‘vexatious litigant,’ provides a procedure in pending litigation for declaring a person a vexatious litigant, and establishes procedural strictures that can be imposed on vexatious litigants. A vexatious litigant may be required to furnish security before proceeding with the pending litigation; if that security is not furnished, the litigation must be dismissed. (§§ 391.3, 391.4.)” (In re Bittaker (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008.)

Meiers formally declared Tina Davis a vexatious litigant in Los Angeles Superior Court case BC642078 Tina Davis v. Walter Worth Millsap, III. The prefiling order listed vexatious litigant Tina Davis’ address as P.O. Box 561096 Los Angeles, California 90056. On August 1, 2019, Department 1 received a request for an OSC from Tina Davis who claims she is not the Tina Davis listed on the vexatious litigant list.

The vexatious litigant statute only authorizes a “defendant” to bring a motion for determination that the “plaintiff” is a vexatious litigant. Code Civ. Proc. §391.1; Mahdavi v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 32, 39- 42 (restrictions in vexatious litigant statute are not intended to apply to a defendant and court may not require a defendant to obtain leave of the presiding judge or justice prior to filing an appeal of the judgment against him).

Motion for Order Finding Plaintiff to be a Vexatious Litigant Defendant moves to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP §§391(b)(1) and (3). (Morton v. Wagner (2007)156 Cal.App.4th 963, 969) Subsection 391(b)(1) provides that a vexatious litigant is a pro per litigant who, during a seven year period has commenced, prosecuted or maintained at least five “litigations” that have been determined adversely to the pro per litigant.

Thus, by way of this instant motion to set aside the Court’s orders, Plaintiff’s motion is essentially another attempt to oppose the motion to declare him a vexatious litigant, as well as another attempt to move for reconsideration on the vexatious litigant motion and order.

Vexatious Litigant – Beigi, joined by the Dodgers, argues that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant as defined under CCP § 391(b)(2).

“Vexatious litigant” is defined in section 391, subd. (b) in relevant part as “any person who . . . (4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence.” Although Plaintiff has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant, the facts at issue in this case are unrelated to the facts, transactions or occurrences alleged in that case.

John Thomas et al., Case No. 19SMCV01458 Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant Hearing Date: Dec. 13, 2019 Plaintiff alleges he was excluded from the Trinity Church bible study. Defendants John Thomas and Linda Broadus move to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §391.

Hearing re: Motion to Declare Appellant a MINER vs CITY OF DESERT Vexatious Litigant and for a Pre-Filing CVPS2106001 HOT SPRINGS Order: Declare a Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant as to JOSEPH MINER Tentative Ruling: GRANT motion for Order Declaring Appellant Joseph Miner a Vexatious Litigant. Appellant to furnish security in the amount of $1750 in this action, said security to be deposited with the clerk of the court within 15 days from the order.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff, under her maiden name, Alyce Vrba, was named as a vexatious litigant and was prohibited from filing any actions without prior authorization. (Declaration of Laura Tagmazian, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) On January 7, 2016, Plaintiff, in propria persona, filed this action without first obtaining leave of the court. (Tagmazian Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendants apparently only discovered Plaintiff’s status as a vexatious litigant in July 2018.

The motion for attorney as to Perry in no way embraces the subject matter of the vexatious litigant order exclusively applicable to Anderson. As to Anderson, the appeal itself challenges the order designating Anderson a vexatious litigant and setting the hearing for bond amount determination.

Notice Of Moton To Vacate Hearing To Declare A Vexatious Litigant Matter on calendar for Monday, February 4, 2013, Line 16, PLAINTIFF FELITA SAMPLE's Motion To Vacate Hearing To Declare A Vexatious Litigant. Continued to February 11, 2013 to be heard with Defendant's Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. =(302/MJM)

Given that there are more than five dismissals, all within the preceding seven-year period, the Court finds that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 391, subdivision (b)(1). The Court also finds that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant pursuant to Section 391, subdivision (b)(2).

Thus, 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.) 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.)

Vexatious Litigant.

However, the court’s order did not declare Petitioner to be a vexatious litigant. Rather, Respondent’s previous motion to declare Petitioner a vexatious litigant was denied on 1/5/16.

(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1009 ("a trial court may set aside a void judgment or order" under CCP sec. 473(d)) Finally, the Court observes the standards for an application for erasure of a vexatious litigant designation under CCP sec. 391.8. A vexatious litigant determination may, or may not, be erasable, [but] if it is 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.)

Determination of Plaintiff’s Status as a Vexatious Litigant CCP § 391(b) defines a vexatious litigant as a person who satisfies one of four alternatives: (1) brings five unmeritorious cases in the preceding seven years; (2) repeatedly relitigates against the same defendant; (3) engages in repeated frivolous or unnecessary delaying tactics; or (4) has been previously declared a vexatious litigant. Here, Defendant fails to establish that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.

Defendant Candace Harding’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff Justin Swingle a Vexatious Litigant is CONTINUED to December 4, 2017 at 8:30 am. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to CCP § 391, which states: (b) “Vexatious litigant” means a person who does any of the following: . . .

Ramirez (Case No. 21SMCV01968) (the Mayendia Action) and in this action establishes that he is a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(3). (Mot., p. 1:22-24.) The trial court exercises its discretion in determining whether a person is a vexatious litigant. ( Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 828 [citation omitted].)

The July 16, 2019 judgment in favor of Merliss was not a money judgment, and Martello fails to demonstrate how the vexatious litigant security she posted constitutes a debt rather than an asset. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.3, vexatious litigant security is furnished “for the benefit of the moving defendant.” Martello’s opposition also admits that Merliss is the “beneficiary” for whom the vexatious litigant security was given.

Notice Of Motion To Require Vexatious Litigant Martin Eng To Provide Security Per Ccp 391.1 Et, Seq Unlawful Detainer Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, February 3, 2012, line 1. DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK's Motion To Require Vexatious Litigant Martin Eng To Provide Security Per Ccp 391.1 Et, Seq Grant. 1) Plaintiff vexatious litigant. 2) Failed to show how will prevail on merits. (501/REQ)

SHIU PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL DATE FOR REMOVAL AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ISSUED 06/27/2017 PRESIDING JUDGE JONATHAN E. KARESH TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Elizabeth White (“Plaintiff”) filed an Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List (“Application”), a Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant and a proposed Prefiling Order.

SHIU PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL DATE FOR REMOVAL AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ISSUED 06/27/2017 PRESIDING JUDGE JONATHAN E. KARESH TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Elizabeth White (“Plaintiff”) filed an Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List (“Application”), a Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant and a proposed Prefiling Order.

SHIU PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL DATE FOR REMOVAL AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ISSUED 06/27/2017 PRESIDING JUDGE JONATHAN E. KARESH TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Elizabeth White (“Plaintiff”) filed an Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List (“Application”), a Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant and a proposed Prefiling Order.

SHIU PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL DATE FOR REMOVAL AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ISSUED 06/27/2017 PRESIDING JUDGE JONATHAN E. KARESH TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Elizabeth White (“Plaintiff”) filed an Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List (“Application”), a Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant and a proposed Prefiling Order.

SHIU PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL DATE FOR REMOVAL AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ISSUED 06/27/2017 PRESIDING JUDGE JONATHAN E. KARESH TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Elizabeth White (“Plaintiff”) filed an Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List (“Application”), a Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant and a proposed Prefiling Order.

SHIU PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL DATE FOR REMOVAL AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ISSUED 06/27/2017 PRESIDING JUDGE JONATHAN E. KARESH TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Elizabeth White (“Plaintiff”) filed an Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List (“Application”), a Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant and a proposed Prefiling Order.

The Court cannot ascertain from mere argument whether or not Plaintiff comes within the scope of a vexatious litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 391(b)(3). Additionally, the cases that Moving Defendant cites in its moving papers are not instructive as neither case relied on Sections 391(b)(2) or 391(b)(3) in determining whether one was a vexatious litigant.

Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant The Code of Civil Procedure enumerates four distinct ways that a person may be deemed a vexatious litigant. (See CCP § 391(b)(1)-(4).) The court focuses on two.

PRESENTATION: Defendant filed the instant motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant on August 30, 2019. Plaintiff opposed the motion on September 30, 2019, and a reply brief was filed on October 03, 2019. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendant moves to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and post a bond of $25,000.

Proc., § 391.8(c), in order to vacate the order deeming him a vexatious litigant. Rather, Plaintiff argues instead that the basis for WREC’s initial motion to have him deemed a vexatious litigant in 2013 is without merit. He contends that out of the 7 examples set forth by Defendant of why he should be deemed a vexatious litigant include cases in which he was not a party (rather his DBA, Nevada Atlantic Corporation was a party), and he was represented by counsel.

Miranda’s Motion to Vacate Minute Order of June 10, 2016 and Prefiling Order-Vexatious Litigant Pursuant to CCP § 473 is CONTINUED to May 11, 2017. CCP §§ 128 and 391.4. A defendant’s primary protection against a vexatious litigant under the 1963 enactments is an order that the plaintiff post “security.”

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Declare R Lane as Vexatious Litigant On March 4 mother filed a motion seeking to declare father a “vexatious litigant.” On March 26 father filed his response. On April 6, 2010 mother filed her reply. I have read all the pleadings. Ruling: The motion to declare Robert a “vexatious litigant” is denied without prejudice.

Defendant argues Plaintiff Wallens qualifies as a vexatious litigant under two of these sections.

Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant Defendant also moves to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant. a. Law Governing Vexatious Litigant Declaration CCP §391 defines a “vexatious litigant” as an individual who has “commenced, prosecuted, or maintained” at least five non-small claims court litigations, in propria persona, where there has been a final determination adverse to the person, or which actions have been pending without justification for two years. (CCP §391(b)(1).)

Although the Motion claims there is an order deeming Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, Moving Defendants admit they cannot locate any such order. (Motion, p. 3:13-14.) The Motion confuses vexatious litigant with high-frequency litigant.

Defendants move to have Plaintiff deemed a vexatious litigant and to require Plaintiff to furnish security. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants’ motion to have Plaintiff deemed a vexatious litigant and requiring Plaintiff to furnish security is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. // // DISCUSSION: Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant Defendants move to have Plaintiff Sheldon Widuch deemed a vexatious litigant. They also seek an order requiring Plaintiff to furnish security in the amount of $70,000.

(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.

For purposes of CCP § 391(b)(4), when the proceeding in which the party was declared a vexatious litigant, and the proceeding in which he or she is sought to be declared a vexatious litigant in reliance on the earlier proceeding, arise from essentially the same facts, transaction or occurrence, the party may be again declared a vexatious litigant . ( Devereaux v. Latham & Watkins (1995) 32 Cal.App.4 th 1571, 1581.)

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order To Vacate Prefiling Order And Remove From Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List Matter on calendar for Friday, May 12, 2017, Line 3, DEFENDANT DEMAS YAN Motion For Order To Vacate Prefiling Order And Remove From Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List. Defendant Dennis Yan's motion to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove From Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List is GRANTED.

.: BC690015 Motion: Motion for Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Posting of Security Moving Party: Defendant City National Bank, N.A. Opposing Party: Unopposed Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted in part. Defendant City National Bank, N.A. seeks to have Plaintiff deemed to be a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order. Defendant also seeks an order requiring that Plaintiff furnish an undertaking to prosecute cases BC690013, BC690014, and the current action, BC690015.

Nature of Proceedings: Renewed Motion for Order Granting Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff From Judicial Counsel Vexatious Litigant List The following is a copy of the tentative ruling for the hearing on August 15, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff Gaye Welch-Brown's ("Plaintiff") "Renewed Motion For Order Granting Application For Order To Vacate Prefiling Order And Remove Plaintiff From Judicial Counsel Vexatious Litigant List" is DENIED.

(b) A vexatious litigant whose application under subdivision (a) was denied shall not be permitted to file another application on or before 12 months has elapsed after the date of the denial of the previous application. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.8, subds. (a-b).) 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 judge permitting the filing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd.

DISCUSSION RE MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT A.

HAMILTON vs TOWNE CVPS2106169 Hearing on Motion (Vexatious Litigant) ASSOCIATES, LLC. Tentative Ruling: Deny.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

He has not provided any new facts or law that would warrant reconsideration of the vexatious litigant decision. The Court shall not grant a reconsideration on this basis. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the vexatious litigant decision is DENIED for failure to comply with CCP § 1008(a)(1).

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

Ferry a Vexatious Litigant. Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate the validity of adverse determinations against the same defendants. Indeed, the Court finds that the present action is based on the same facts and circumstances presented in Plaintiff’s prior actions filed in this Court, including Case Nos.

In this case, Defendant has not cited to any evidence in support of his request that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant. Defendant does not submit any evidence or any requests for judicial notice in conjunction with the citations and argument made in this case. Therefore, Defendant has not met his burden to establish Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and the motion is denied. The court did not consider Plaintiff's "confidential" documents as Plaintiff failed to comply with Cal.

Defendant moves to have plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant on the following grounds: plaintiff has commenced and maintained in pro per eight cases within the past few years that have been dismissed; plaintiff has also maintained one case in pro per for more than two years; on August 9, 2018 plaintiff was deemed a vexatious litigant in Van Den Heuvel v.

As of June 1, 2021, Dave Bischoff remains on the California Courts vexatious litigant list. Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, subdivision (c), provides: “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.

Prefiling Order: The vexatious litigant statutes also authorize the court to enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing new actions in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge or justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.7, subd. (a).)

MOTION TO DEEM PARTY VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP § 391) TENTATIVE RULING: Non-Party Jennifer Searle’s Motion to Deem Plaintiff Vexatious Litigant is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for discrimination on the basis of disability. RELIEF REQUESTED: Deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

MOTION / Notice Of Motion & Motion To Declare Plaintiff A Vexatious Litigant, For Order To Furnish Security And For Pre-Filing Order Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 11, 2017 line 4. DEFENDANTs J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK and CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY's Motion To Declare Plaintiff A Vexatious Litigant, For Order To Furnish Security And For Pre-Filing Order GRANTED.

Therefore, Moving Defendants have shown that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant as defined by CCP § 391(b)(1). The Aduts also argue that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under CCP § 391(b)(3) because he has filed a number of actions that were dismissed due to his failure to appear for trial, and because he has no reasonable probability of success in this action.

For the reasons identified above and further detailed in this Court’s December 14, 2018 order, the Court finds Ramanas Gibson is a vexatious litigant as defined by CCP § 391(b)(1).

Defendant has not proffered any evidence that demonstrates that plaintiff Levelle Maxey should be deemed a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391. Accordingly, the court is not finding Levelle Maxey is a vexatious litigant.

Defendant has not proffered any evidence that demonstrates that plaintiff Tammi Berry should be deemed a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391. Accordingly, the court is not finding Tammi Berry is a vexatious litigant.

If a court orders a vexatious litigant to post a security, the matter is stayed for 10 days until after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant was given written notice thereof. CCP § 391.6. When a vexatious litigant fails to post the required security, the court must dismiss the litigation as to the defendant for whose benefit the security was ordered. CCP § 391.4; Luckett v. Keylee (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 919, 926.

Even cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice count for the purpose of the vexatious litigant statute because they are still “a burden on the target of the litigation and the judicial system.” (Tokerud v. Capitolbank Sacramento (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 775, 779.) Based on the foregoing, Zhang is a vexatious litigant under CCP §391(b)(1).

(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.

Notice Of Motion For Order Requiring Pltf To Furnish Security And For Prefling Order Prohibiting Vexatious Litigant From Filing New Litigation In Pro Per; Request For Judicial Notice SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007, LINE 4. DEFENDANT BRADFORD WILLMORE'S Motion For Order Requiring Plaintiff To Furnish Security And For Prefling Order Prohibiting Vexatious Litigant From Filing New Litigation In Pro Per is denied.

On January 5, 2018 a James Burton Brown appeared in Department 1, asserting that he is not the above-noted vexatious litigant and that confusion with that litigant is preventing him from filing new litigation. At that time Mr. Brown indicated to this courtroom’s clerk inter alia that in 2013 he lived at an address on Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles. Due to this, and to his middle name being different from that of the vexatious litigant, Mr.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND I) MOTION TO VACATE OR SET ASIDE 031022 ORDER TO DEEM RODNEY HAACKE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, TO REQUIRE HIS MCC2000862 HAACKE vs BANNER BANK POSTING AN UNDERTAKING, AND TO REQUIRE HIM TO OBTAIN A PRE- FILJNG ORDER FOR ALL FUTURE LITIGATIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff seeks to set aside the Court’s order of March 20, 2022 deeming him a vexatious litigant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 391.8 and 472.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND I) MOTION TO VACATE OR SET ASIDE 031022 ORDER TO DEEM RODNEY HAACKE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, TO REQUIRE HIS MCC2000862 HAACKE vs BANNER BANK POSTING AN UNDERTAKING, AND TO REQUIRE HIM TO OBTAIN A PRE- FILJNG ORDER FOR ALL FUTURE LITIGATIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff seeks to set aside the Court’s order of March 20, 2022 deeming him a vexatious litigant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 391.8 and 472.

First, Defendants argue correctly that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. He was previously declared a vexatious litigant in July 2018, in a prior action entitled Nagui Mankaruse v. Raytheon Co. and TRS LLC US (2016-878349.) (RJN at Ex. 1.) The court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and that prior action was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. And Plaintiff’s name still appears on the Vexatious Litigant List maintained by the Judicial Council of California. (RJN at Ex. 2.)