“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.)
Bank N.A., and NDSC (collectively, Defendants) now move for Plaintiff to be declared a vexatious litigant. Legal Standard A party may be deemed a vexatious litigant upon a showing that the party repeatedly files unmeritorious papers, conducts unnecessary discovery or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. (CCP § 391(b)(3).) Alternatively, the decision can be based upon the ground that the party repeatedly relitigates finally determined litigation.
Jul 15, 2020
Real Property
Foreclosure
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant Defendants SPS and US Bank (hereinafter, Defendants) move for (1) an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and (2) a prefiling order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any new litigation without permission.[1] CCP section 391(b) sets forth the definition of a “vexatious litigant.”
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Rosenstiel as a vexatious litigant. (Def.’s RJN, Ex. B.) Subsequently Mr. Rosenstiel’s attorneys have filed three additional cases in this Court district, two of which relate explicitly to the title and possession to the Riderwood Property. Judge Alarcon has apparently declined to relate the cases. Nevertheless, pending a trial in which the actual ownership of the Riderwood Property will be examined, this Court should not proceed with these cases.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
BC608565) declaring Rosenstiel a vexatious litigant; (G) a copy of the injunction filed with the court on 3/1/19 in BC628570; and (H) the register of actions in Zielke v. Rosenstiel (LASC Case No. BC628570). The requests for judicial notice is granted, but the truths of the matter stated therein will not be subject to judicial notice. 2. Discussion The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and requests for judicial notice.
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
MOTION TO DECLARE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Romero moves to declare all Plaintiffs in this action vexatious litigants. (Motion at p. 2.)
Jul 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant and entered a prefiling order. On March 20, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.
Jul 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant and entered a prefiling order. On February 18, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to entire action. On March 20, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.
Jul 07, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
However, Defendant is correct that Shin was declared a vexatious litigant, necessarily requiring him to have filed at least seven cases in pro per. (CCP § 391(b).) Upon closer scrutiny, Shin is involved in at least 20 other cases as a pro per plaintiff in Los Angeles County.[1] (See Shin Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 3.)
Jul 02, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(1). CCP § 391(b)(3) The Motion also suggests that Plaintiff should be deemed a vexatious litigant under subdivision (b)(3) of section 391. Unlike Code of Civil Procedure section 391 subdivisions (b)(1), subdivision (b)(3) does not specify either a time frame or quantity of actions necessary to support a vexatious litigant finding under that section.
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, Defendant’s notice of motion did not refer to the relevant authority to declare a party a vexatious litigant. CCP § 391 et seq. The Court further notes that Defendant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to establish that Plaintiff should be declared a vexatious litigant.
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Although the court is aware that plaintiff has recently been declared a vexatious litigant by Judge Hammock in an unrelated action, his status as such as not influenced any of the court’s rulings in this case. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling, in addition to separate notice of the ruling in the related case. Date: June 26, 2020 Honorable Stuart M. Rice Judge of the Superior Court
Jun 26, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
HEARING ON MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT FILED BY FREMONT BANK * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a motion to declare Plaintiff Anne Hancock (“Plaintiff” or “Hancock”) a vexatious litigant. Defendant Fremont Bank (“Defendant” or “Fremont Bank”) brings the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391 et seq. Plaintiff attempted to file a request to vacate the motion in response; although it was rejected by the clerk it was served on Defendants and the Court has reviewed it.
Jun 25, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
To the extent that Real Parties argue that Rudisill is a vexatious litigant who will be deterred from filing further frivolous actions, this assertion is controverted by Rudisill’s evidence demonstrating that the majority of her claims were successful and meritorious. See Rudisill Decl. Real Parties’ success in overturning their sanctions did not confer a significant benefit on the public or a large class of persons. 4.
Jun 23, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
., 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. TENTATIVE 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.
Jun 23, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Moreover, Plaintiff has represented to the Court under penalty of perjury that the instant case is not a class action, [2] which, in conjunction with Plaintiff’s status as a vexatious litigant, raises serious credibility issues that would hinder his serving as a class representative. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the class action claim is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
Apr 28, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
Mar 20, 2020
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
The hearing on the Motion for Order Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Requiring Plaintiff to Post Security is CONTINUED to 5/5/2020 at 1:30 p.m. Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the need for social distancing, and a state of emergency having been declared by Governor Newsom, the court finds good cause to continue the hearing on this motion to 5/5/2020. On the Court’s own motion, the trial in this matter is continued to 8/11/2020.
Mar 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Require Security set for March 17, 2020 is continued to April 14, 2020. Appearance is required. The Court to issue Order to Warden to Make Inmate Available by Telephone for hearing. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge of the Superior Court
Mar 12, 2020
George J. Abdallah
San Joaquin County, CA
Hsu is a vexatious litigant. This case was dismissed by order filed May 24, 2017. Mr. Hsu may not file any additional pleadings in this case already adjudicated case without obtaining prior approval from the Presiding Judge.
Mar 11, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
As to Thorne’s request to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, since judgment has already been entered, there is no reason to make such a determination and the issue of posting security is moot.
Mar 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
PaineWebber Incorporated (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 982, 993, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 93.) ¶ 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.
Feb 28, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
The court dismissed that case on February 23, 2018 and cautioned Plaintiff that if he continued to file duplicative complaints that required the court to abstain for the same reasons, the court may recommend the entry of a vexatious litigant order and the imposition of pre-filing restrictions against Plaintiff. (Ibid.)
Feb 27, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
B [indicating plaintiff is a vexatious litigant]) and chose to press forward with the motion even after his counsel withdrew, including at the 2/7/20 motion hearing when plaintiff pro per continued to argue the original merits of the demurrer. Indeed, in accordance with CCP § 128(f)(1)(B), on 1/2/20, defendants served a copy of the instant motion for sanctions prior to filing it, but plaintiff chose not to withdraw his then-pending motion for reconsideration.
Feb 21, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court directs Plaintiff's notice to the vexatious litigant statute and, in particular, the definition of "vexatious litigant" set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §391, subdivisions (b)(2) and (b)(3). Moving party to give notice of this court's ruling.
Feb 20, 2020
Real Property
other
Ventura County, CA
MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA ELKINS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT; FOR AN ORDER TO FURNISH SECURITY; AND FOR A PREFILING ORDER by defendants Star-West Parkway Mall, LP and Starwood Retail Property Management, LLC is GRANTED. Request for Judicial Notice is granted. To the extent plaintiff attempted to dismiss this action after this motion was filed, the ability to declare an individual a vexatious litigant survives. (Pittman v.
Feb 20, 2020
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
