“The vexatious litigant statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 391 et seq.) were first codified in 1963. (Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 838, 841, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 42; Stats.1963, ch. 1471, § 1, p. 3038.) These statutes, which are constitutional (In re Whitaker (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 54, 56, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 249), "were enacted to require a person found to be a vexatious litigant to put up security for the reasonable expenses of a defendant who becomes the target of an obsessive and persistent litigant whose conduct can cause serious financial results to the unfortunate object of his or her attack. The purpose of the statutory scheme is to deal with the problem created by the persistent and obsessive litigant who has constantly pending a number of groundless actions, often against the judges and other court officers who decide or were concerned in the decision of previous actions adversely to him." (Childs v. PaineWebber Incorporated (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 982, 993, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 (internal citation omitted).)
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. Defendant must prove that the plaintiff is a 'vexatious litigant' and that there is no reasonable probability that plaintiff will prevail in the litigation. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.1.) The statute contemplates a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff qualifies as 'vexatious' ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.2) and instructs the court to require security if it finds plaintiff has no reasonable probability of prevailing. Security is 'for the benefit of the moving defendant' and in 'such amount and within such time as the court shall fix.' ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.3.) If security is not furnished as ordered, the 'litigation' shall be dismissed as to the 'defendant for whose benefit it was ordered furnished.' ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.4.) .... [¶] ... [¶] ¶ "Section 391.7, added in 1990 (Stats.1990, ch. 621, § 3, pp. 3072-3073), furnished the courts an additional resource for addressing vexatious litigant problems. This newer section operates beyond the pending case and affects the litigant's future filings. It authorizes a court to 'enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.' ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.7, subd. (a).) ¶ "When a prefiling order is in force, '[t]he presiding judge shall permit the filing of such litigation only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay. The presiding judge may condition the filing of the litigation upon the furnishing of security for the benefit of the defendants. ....' ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.7, subd. (b).) If the clerk mistakenly files any litigation presented by a litigant who is subject to a prefiling order, the litigant may be required to seek the presiding judge's permission to proceed. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.7, subd. (c).) The clerk of any court issuing a prefiling order is to provide a copy of such order to the Judicial Council, which maintains and disseminates annually a list of persons subject to such orders. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 391.7, subd. (d).)" (Fns.omitted.)” (People v. Harrison (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 780, 785-786.)
A vexatious litigant, who—although subject to a pre-filing order—nevertheless files an improper in propria persona lawsuit, faces the possibility that the lawsuit will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391.7(c), regardless of the impact that a dismissal will have on the vexatious litigant. (Kovacevic v. Avalon at Eagles’ Crossing Homeowners Assn. (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 677, 686-87.)
20STCV26931 ANTHONY WRIGHT vs CASA DE LAS INVESTMENTS LLC Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Declare Anthony Wright a Vexatious Litigant TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The court declares Anthony Wright a vexatious litigant and will issue a prefiling order. Defendants’ request for security is DENIED. Counsel for defendants is ordered to submit a prefiling order for signature within 10 days.
Jan 27, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE In the motion papers, Defendants request judicial notice of this Court’s October 30, 2020 ruling on Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, wherein the Court took judicial notice of the case Antranik Kevorkian v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, et al. in Case No. BC596795 filed at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (hereinafter, “First Lawsuit”). (See Notice of Motion at p.2.) The request to take judicial notice of the First Lawsuit is granted. (Evid.
Jan 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
PLT Danny Cavic Motion to Vacate Plaintiff Danny Cavic’s motion to vacate the 2/26/13 order deeming him a vexatious litigant is continued to 2/18/21 at 2PM. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s proof of service, he served the moving papers on Jeffrey N. Brown (attorney/former attorney for WREC Lido Ventures) at 2029 Century Park, East, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067. However, in email correspondence (ROA 10/21/20), Mr.
Jan 15, 2021
Orange County, CA
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE In the motion papers, Defendants request judicial notice of this Court’s October 30, 2020 ruling on Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, wherein the Court took judicial notice of the case Antranik Kevorkian v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, et al. in Case No. BC596795 filed at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (hereinafter, “First Lawsuit”). (See Notice of Motion at p.2.) The request to take judicial notice of the First Lawsuit is granted. (Evid.
Jan 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has brought evidence that Defendant 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.
Jan 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The moving defendant must show “that there is not a reasonable probability that [the vexatious litigant] will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” C.C.P. §§391.1, 391.3(a).
Dec 22, 2020
Solano County, CA
On September 11, 2019, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for a Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security. On February 7, 2020, in the Related Case, this Court denied Plaintiff Shin’s Motion for Reconsideration as to the Motion for a Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security. On September 11, 2020, Shin filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, again as to the Motion for a Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security.
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 11, 2019, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for a Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security. On February 7, 2020, in the Related Case, this Court denied Plaintiff Shin’s Motion for Reconsideration as to the Motion for a Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security. On September 11, 2020, Shin filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, again as to the Motion for a Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security.
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant President Hotel Investment, LLC’s (“President”) Motion to Declare Plaintiff Peter Strojnik (“Plaintiff”) a Vexatious Litigant (“Motion”) is continued to 01/07/20. President is required to serve notice on those parties who have made a formal appearance in the action, including defendant GRANDHI17 LLC, erroneously sued as SWK Properties, LLC (“GRANDHI17”), as service of the Motion came after GRANDHI17 filed its Answer on 09/04/20. CCP § 1014; Winikow v. Superior Court, 82 Cal.
Dec 03, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff later learned that the scam buyer had prior connections with Moazez, had been convicted for fraud, has been deemed a vexatious litigant. Moazez knew that the scam buyer was a grifter and not a legitimate purchaser. On September 17, 2020, Moazez filed a notice of joinder in Link’s demurrer and motion to strike to the FAC. On September 18, 2020, Link filed a demurrer and motion to strike against the FAC. On November 19, 2020, Harutunian filed an opposition.
Dec 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Motion to 1) Declare Petitioner a Vexatious Litigant, 2) Require Petitioner to Furnish Security, and 3) Enter a Prefiling Order is GRANTED IN PART.
Dec 03, 2020
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
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.
Nov 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 20, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.)
Nov 17, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 12, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
Nov 12, 2020
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
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.)
Nov 10, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
(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.
Nov 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 05, 2020
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
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.
Nov 05, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Nov 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Oct 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 23, 2020
Orange County, CA
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
Oct 22, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
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).
Oct 20, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
