WHEN IS A PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT?
WHEN IS A PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT?
  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Firm News
  4.  » WHEN IS A PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT?

WHEN IS A PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT?

| May 2, 2019 | Firm News

Legal Advertisement:

Mary McFadden, who had been adjudicated a vexatious litigant  by the trial court, appealed from a judgment and order entered after the trial court granted its own motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 436 and motion for judgment on the pleadings under section 438.

The California Court of Appeal relied on the Vexatious Litigant Statutes under the California Code of Civil Procedure:

“If, after hearing evidence on” a motion brought against a vexatious litigant under section 391.3 “the court determines that the litigation has no merit and has been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay, the court shall order the litigation dismissed. This subdivision shall only apply to litigation filed in a court of this state by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order pursuant to Section 391.7 who was represented by counsel at the time the litigation was filed and who became in propria persona after the withdrawal of his or her attorney.”5 (§ 391.3, subd. (b).)

The California Court of Appeal also reviewed the principals of res judicata:

“ ‘If the matter was within the scope of the action, related to the subject matter and relevant to the issues, so that it could have been raised, the judgment is conclusive on it despite the fact that it was not in fact expressly pleaded or otherwise urged . . . . The reason for this is manifest. A party cannot by negligence or design withhold issues and litigate them in consecutive actions. Hence the rule is that the prior judgment is res judicata on matters which were raised or could have been raised, on matters litigated or litigable.’ ” (Tensor Group v. City of Glendale (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 154, 160, original italics.)

The California Court of Appeal found that McFadden’s appeals had no merit and that they had been filed to harass the respondents, Los Angeles County; the appeals were dismissed.

See McFadden v Los Angeles County Treasurer and tax Collector, et al.

If you are faced with a vexatious litigant, you need a highly skilled and tenacious attorney as your advocate!  Contact the Law Office of Robert Rodriguez!

Robert Rodriguez has litigated well over 100 family law cases and civil litigation matters including personal injury motor vehicle cases, dog bite and slip & fall cases, breach of contract, defamation & invasion of privacy, fraud, unfair business practice, malicious prosecution, workplace and employment matters including sexual harassment, wrongful termination, wage & hour violations, discrimination pursuant to the FEHA, Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq., violations of the FMLA & Pregnancy Leave, Civil Rights  discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the State of California and California federal district courts.

* Disclaimer – Robert Rodriguez is licensed to practice only in the State of California & this analysis is applied only under State of California law.  Robert Rodriguez is also admitted to practice in the U.S. District Courts, Central, Northern & Eastern Districts of California.

LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT