California
Short history: The last few years I have been targeted by a non-attorney serial litigator who would not stop filing mostly pro se civil cases against me. There have been about 15 separate cases so far. I prevailed on all but one small claims case, which was overturned on appeal. A few times the plaintiff didn’t bother to appear. I was represented in all but the small claims actions. It has cost me thousands. Last year my attorney had finally had enough, and we filed a motion to declare this plaintiff vexatious. Motion was granted. In researching to prepare the motion I discovered I was not the only one, just the one that received the worst of it. There are at least ten other cases against others where the same plaintiff did not prevail but kept re-litigating the same causes of action.
After being declared vexatious by the court things quieted down. Now this plaintiff has discovered that they are not barred from bringing actions in small claims court so things have started up again. When the small claims clerk was notified of the plaintiff’s status they refused to reject the filing but would not tell me why. I started researching on my own and discovered why. Read on if interested.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 391 et. seq. defines a vexatious litigant and restrictions and penalties the courts can apply. CCP § 391 et. seq. requires a vexatious litigant who is subject to a prefiling order to obtain permission from the supervising judge before filing litigation in pro per. This requires the litigant to prove that their proposed action has merit. The statute has been amended by the legislature several times since it was passed in the 1960’s.
In 1993, the California Appeals Court published a decision stating that the pre-approval requirement of CCP § 391 et. seq. did not apply to actions filed in small claims courts (they are not "courts of record"). [Banks v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1147, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 127]
In 1994, the legislature amended CCP § 391 to encompass small claims actions. The published legislative counsel digest confirms this was the specific legislative intent of that assembly bill.
These days, the supervising judge of LA Superior Court civil division is still relying on the Banks decision when giving the go ahead to vexatious litigants seeking permission to file in small claims court. Per the clerk, all vexatious litigants seeking permission to file in small claims are told to go ahead, they do not need to obtain prior permission, and Banks is cited in the answer to their request. I have not checked what any other county in California is doing re: vexatious litigants seeking permission to file in small claims court.
While I can continue to go into small claims each time and argue the above, it only affects the current case. Then I will need to repeat this every time a new case is filed. This is what my attorney suggested I do, adding that I should not worry because judges hate vexatious litigants.
There are hundreds of names on California’s vexatious litigant list. I am probably not the only one being targeted in small claims by one of these people.
Question: How and where do I bring this to the court's attention so they stop relying on the Banks decision, which I believe stopped being relevant in 1994 when the legislature amended CCP § 391 ?
Short history: The last few years I have been targeted by a non-attorney serial litigator who would not stop filing mostly pro se civil cases against me. There have been about 15 separate cases so far. I prevailed on all but one small claims case, which was overturned on appeal. A few times the plaintiff didn’t bother to appear. I was represented in all but the small claims actions. It has cost me thousands. Last year my attorney had finally had enough, and we filed a motion to declare this plaintiff vexatious. Motion was granted. In researching to prepare the motion I discovered I was not the only one, just the one that received the worst of it. There are at least ten other cases against others where the same plaintiff did not prevail but kept re-litigating the same causes of action.
After being declared vexatious by the court things quieted down. Now this plaintiff has discovered that they are not barred from bringing actions in small claims court so things have started up again. When the small claims clerk was notified of the plaintiff’s status they refused to reject the filing but would not tell me why. I started researching on my own and discovered why. Read on if interested.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 391 et. seq. defines a vexatious litigant and restrictions and penalties the courts can apply. CCP § 391 et. seq. requires a vexatious litigant who is subject to a prefiling order to obtain permission from the supervising judge before filing litigation in pro per. This requires the litigant to prove that their proposed action has merit. The statute has been amended by the legislature several times since it was passed in the 1960’s.
In 1993, the California Appeals Court published a decision stating that the pre-approval requirement of CCP § 391 et. seq. did not apply to actions filed in small claims courts (they are not "courts of record"). [Banks v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1147, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 127]
In 1994, the legislature amended CCP § 391 to encompass small claims actions. The published legislative counsel digest confirms this was the specific legislative intent of that assembly bill.
These days, the supervising judge of LA Superior Court civil division is still relying on the Banks decision when giving the go ahead to vexatious litigants seeking permission to file in small claims court. Per the clerk, all vexatious litigants seeking permission to file in small claims are told to go ahead, they do not need to obtain prior permission, and Banks is cited in the answer to their request. I have not checked what any other county in California is doing re: vexatious litigants seeking permission to file in small claims court.
While I can continue to go into small claims each time and argue the above, it only affects the current case. Then I will need to repeat this every time a new case is filed. This is what my attorney suggested I do, adding that I should not worry because judges hate vexatious litigants.
There are hundreds of names on California’s vexatious litigant list. I am probably not the only one being targeted in small claims by one of these people.
Question: How and where do I bring this to the court's attention so they stop relying on the Banks decision, which I believe stopped being relevant in 1994 when the legislature amended CCP § 391 ?
