CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Procedure Before Trial/Hearing
......Vexatious Litigants
 16 Cards On This Topic:
  • Vexatious litigant defined.
  • A defendant’s status as a vexatious litigant plaintiff in one matter cannot limit that same defendant’s ability to pursue an appeal in an action she did not initiate as a plaintiff.
  • Section 391.7’s prefiling process does not apply where a vexatious litigant who was subject to a vexatious litigant prefiling order in a past action filed new litigation represented by counsel.
  • D's cross-complaint in prior KS action is one of the "five litigations" required for CCP §391(b)(1) vexatious litigant finding.
  • An order denying a vexatious litigant's request to file new litigation is not an appealable order.
  • The filing of a motion to designate someone a vexatious litigant stays all further proceedings until question is resolved.
  • A responding party may be declared a vexatious litigant and subject to a prefiling order.
  • Appellant’s use of implied threats in briefs against judges and attorneys whom he felt had aggrieved him will not be tolerated and are sanctionable.
  • When a vexatious litigant commences an action represented by counsel, and then becomes pro se after counsel withdraws, the ct., after a hearing, shall order the litigation dismissed if it has no merit and was filed for purposes of harassment or delay.
  • The trial ct. may rule on a pending vexatious litigant motion in a case even after the alleged vexatious litigant voluntarily dismisses the case.
  • Administrative proceedings do not qualify as litigation under the vexatious litigant statutes.
  • P properly declared a vexatious litigant where she failed to heed judge's warning not to file further unsubstantiated motions similar to 2 previously denied.
  • Father properly declared vexatious litigant; order is akin to an injunction and is appealable.
  • Trial court properly dismissed P's action where she was a vexatious litigant who violated a 2002 prefiling order precluding her from filing any new litigation in pro per without leave of court. (CCP 391.7.)
  • Untold hours and costs appellate court expended re D's voluminous, meritless appeals and writs concerning son's dependency case led it to label him vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order.
  • Evidence did not support finding D's motions were so numerous, "unmeritorious" or "frivolous" as to come within the meaning of the vexatious litigant legislation.


    •