What is a Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant?

Useful Resources for Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant

Recent Rulings on Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant

ANTHONY WRIGHT VS CASA DE LAS INVESTMENTS LLC, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CAVIC VS. WREC LIDO VENTURE, LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

TATIANNA ROTOLO V. TALINA GALDAMEZ

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).

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

JAMES SHIN VS LAW OFFICE OF MORSE MEHRBAN, A.P.C., ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

JAMES SHIN, VS LAW OFFICE OF MORSE MEHRBAN, A.P.C., ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

STROJNIK V. LEE FAMILY TRUST

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

MIKE HARUTUNIAN , ET AL. VS LINK USA, LLC, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

ARELLANO VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS REHABILITATION

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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

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

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

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

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.