What is a Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant

Recent Rulings on Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant

SMITH VS VINKOV

The clerk is directed to reinstate the Motion to Deem Defendant a Vexatious Litigant. The clerk is directed to provide the Motion date for Plaintiff who will provide notice of the motion. The court will not entertain oral argument.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

ELLE BI VS TONY E. LUND

Motion to Deem Plaintiff Elle Bi a Vexatious Litigant Defendant moves the Court for an order deeming Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, requiring Plaintiff to furnish security in this action, and issuing a pre-filing order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any new litigation without leave of court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

JOHNSON VS. JOINER

Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant Moving Party: Defendant William G. Joiner, individually and as Trustee of The William G. Joiner Trust Responding Party: Plaintiff Kelly S. Johnson Ruling: Defendant Joiner’s unopposed Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant per Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 is granted. The court hereby prohibits Plaintiff Kelly S.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT; SANCTIONS (CCP § 391, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Alex Yerkes and Misty Thomson’s Request to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and for Order Dismissing Action or that Plaintiff Post Undertaking is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 5, 2020 AT _______ AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. NO FURTHER BRIEFING BY DEFENDANTS IS PERMITTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT; SANCTIONS (CCP § 391, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Alex Yerkes and Misty Thomson’s Request to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and for Order Dismissing Action or that Plaintiff Post Undertaking is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 5, 2020 AT 10 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. NO FURTHER BRIEFING BY DEFENDANTS IS PERMITTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DILLARD J MCNELEY VS MCDONALD'S AN CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS, AN INDIVIDUAL CO.

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 COURT 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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DALE HARMS VS. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (Joinder) FILED BY THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s opposed motion to join NGC Fund I, LLC’s motion to declare Dale Harms a vexatious litigant is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DALE HARMS VS. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

Vexatious Litigant Statute Code of Civil Procedure § 391 provides in part: As used in this title, the following terms have the following meanings: . . .

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DALE HARMS VS. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

HEARING ON MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT FILED BY ANCHOR LOANS LP * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Anchor Loans, LP’s unopposed motion for joinder with NGC Fund I, LLC’s motion to declare Plaintiff Dale Harms a vexatious litigant is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ARTHUR GROSS III, AS ASSIGNEE OF THE VILLAS AT CORTE BELLA V. WESTPARK CORTE BELLA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Defendant Westpark Corte Bella Community Association’s (“Defendant”) motion for an order declaring Plaintiff Arthur Gross III a vexatious litigant and requiring him to post security, is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

PATRICK BROOKS VS PINNACLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

The Court notes that inserted within the notice of motion for summary judgment was a request by moving party that Patrick Brooks be deemed a vexatious litigant. However, the Court makes no order or ruling on this request as this request was not properly noticed as a noticed motion for order to require furnishing of security and/or order for dismissal pursuant to CCP §§ 391.1 and 391.3. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

IVAN RENE MOORE VS KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG

Defendant’s Evidence Opposing Contempt Defendant relevantly declares that: (1) Plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant (Martin-Bragg Decl. at ¶ 8 and Exhibit 6); (2) Wells Fargo executed on its writ of possession and, as such, she does not have Plaintiff’s personal property (Id. at ¶ 21); and (3) there is no means for her to comply with the order turning over the property to him. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

ASBERRY V. EMERZIAN

Motion: by Defendant to dismiss with prejudice owing to plaintiff’s failure to post security as a vexatious litigant Tentative Ruling: To grant, but without prejudice. Explanation: When a plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant, a defendant may move the court for an order requiring plaintiff to post a bond on the ground that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and “there is not a reasonable probability that he will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.1.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SABER VS. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

Motion to Declare Plaintiff Sam Saber a Vexatious Litigant filed by Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank NO TENTATIVE

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b) defines a vexatious litigant as a person who does any of the following: . . .

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

SABER VS. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association on 6/25/20 CONTINUED TO AUGUST 17, 2020

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

WILLIAM J WHITSITT VS CITY OF STOCKTON ET AL.

The court declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant on February 20, 2020 and ordered Plaintiff to post security on or before March 23, 2020. He failed to do so. the Court dismisses Plaintiff's action with prejudice. Judge DOUGLAS V. MEWHINNEY

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Doug Mewhinney

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

RUVOLO V. WALMART CORPORATION

To be declared a vexatious litigant, the plaintiff must come within one of the definitions in section 391, subdivision (b). [Citation.] Furthermore, ‘[a]ny determination that a litigant is vexatious must comport with the intent and spirit of the vexatious litigant statute.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On September 18, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Vexatious Litigant Order Pursuant to CCP § 391.7(c) regarding Plaintiff. On October 9, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ action for failure to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s October 9, 2019 order of dismissal on October 21, 2019. Defendants filed an opposition on March 5, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on July 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

MIRANDA, RAFAEL D VS MANUKIAN, ASHOT

On September 18, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Vexatious Litigant Order Pursuant to CCP § 391.7(c) regarding Plaintiff. On October 9, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ action for failure to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s October 9, 2019 order of dismissal on October 21, 2019. Defendants filed an opposition on March 5, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on July 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MISTY MAYS ET AL. VS SREY TEANG

On the Court's own motion Plaintiffs', Motion to Determine Srey Teang a Vexatious Litigant set for August 6, 2020 is continued to August 20, 2020 at 9AM. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

EVELYN CHRISTINA RAMIREZ VS. JOSE CASTANEDA

On May 18, 2012, Jose Castaneda was declared a vexatious litigant in Castaneda v. Estate of Robert Berke, et al., LASC Case No. BC466737. On June 17, 2013, James Blume was declared a vexatious litigant in Blume v. Watt et al., LASC Case No. BC453664. Accordingly, under CCP § 391.7(a), Castaneda and Blume are prohibited from filing any new litigation in Los Angeles Superior Court in propria persona without obtaining leave from the presiding judge.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BACLET VS BACLET

The Verified Cross-Complaint shows Defendant’s declaratory relief action seeks an adjudication of her and Plaintiff’s rights, duties and obligations with respect to the California Properties, as well as injunctive and equitable relief, including that the court declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Verified Cross-Complaint, at ¶76 and Prayer, at ¶7.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

ALONZO JOSEPH VS SGT A HERNANDEZ CO M MURILLO

In fact, plaintiff has filed ten cases in the past five years which is sufficient to declare him a vexatious litigant in this case: Joseph v. Franklin: Lassen Superior Court Case No. 62205: On July 16, 2019, the Lassen Superior Court found plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant. (Ex. CCC) Joseph v. C.N.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BAUMAN VS WELLS FARGO BANK N A

s Motion for Vexatious Litigant Prefiling Order is DENIED without prejudice. (ROA 120.) Defendant's motion identifies 16 cases commenced by Plaintiff Jordana Bauman beginning in 2012. However, Defendant has not provided sufficient information for the court to determine that at least five of these cases have been "finally determined adversely" to Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.