Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/application-for-order-to-vacate-prefiling-order-and-remove-plaintiff-petitioner-from-judicial-council-vexatious-litigant-list-361
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 00:08:21
Document Index: 72593884

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 4', '§ 391', '§ 377', '§391', '§391', '§ 391', '§ 473', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 377', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 1005', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§391', '§ 391', '§ 391', '§ 391']

What is an Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff/Petitioner from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List?
Removal from the Vexatious Litigant List
Pursuant to CCP § 391.8, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order under CCP § 391.7 may file an application to vacate the pre-filing order and remove his or her name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to pre-filing orders. (CCP § 391.8(a).)
Factor for Removal: Material Change in the Facts
The pre-filing order may be vacated and removal of a vexatious litigant’s name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants be ordered only upon a showing of a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order. (CCP § 391.8(c).)
While a vexatious litigant determination may be erasable, erasure requires substantial evidence that the vexatious litigant has mended his ways or conduct. (Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 77, 83 (noting a “decent interval-certainly no less than four years” would be a sufficient passing of time for the litigant in that case to seek to have a prefiling order lifted after his unsuccessful appeal).)
Substantial evidence that bears on whether a vexatious litigant has mended his ways is not some success in litigation, but evidence that he has given up suing people as a way of life. (Id. at 93-94.) Such evidence includes proof of a propensity for honesty, of efforts at obtaining gainful employment, of genuine remorse for the costs of litigation inflicted on the defendants who were the object of previous lawsuits, and of some genuine effort at restitution toward the previous victims of his litigation, including actual payment of cost orders made by the courts in prior litigation. (Ibid.)
In seeking to vacate a prefiling order, the litigant cannot challenge the propriety of the court’s imposition of that prefiling order. (In re Marriage of Rifkin and Carty (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 1339, 1347.)
See also Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.
Useful Rulings on Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff/Petitioner from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List
ALVIN E WILLIAMS ET AL VS BENTLEY MOTORS INC ET AL
#1 – Williams, et al. v. Bentley Motors Inc., et al. (BC342574) On May 5, 2015 and again on September 4, 2015, Judge Stephen P. Pfahler formally declared Alvin E. Williams and Judith M. Brown-Williams to be vexatious litigants in Los Angeles County Superior Court case PC056141 Williams v. Bentley Motors Inc., et al. Request for Clarification On June 10, 2019, along with the motion set for heari...
..s the permission required by the Hon. Judge Stephen Pfahler to consider the Plaintiffs VL-120 Applications.” (Request at 7.) This court’s May 9, 2019 ruling noted that, pursuant to CCP § 391.8(a), Plaintiffs’ requests to be removed from the vexatious litigant list must be made before Judge Stephen Pfahler, the judicial officer who entered the prefiling orders against them. Plaintiffs do not need...
LEON SANDERS VS JAMES D WALKER ET AL
MOTION TO DISMISS VOID VEXATIONS LITIGANT JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Leon Sanders RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants James D. Walker and Sandra K. White; Defendant Julie Allen, Trustee of the Allen Family Trust, Dated 1-4-2002, erroneously sued as Julia Allen; Defendant North American Title Company, Inc. PROOF OF SERVICE: ANALYSIS Requests for Judicial Notice Defendants’ request that the...
..t aside the January 31, 2019 order declaring Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant and requiring Plaintiff to post $33,000 security. The basis for this motion is that Plaintiff did not receive notice of the motion to declare him a vexatious litigant and to post $33,000 security, nor of the motion to dismiss. As to the request to set aside the February 22, 2019 order dismissing this action, CCP § 4...
MIRANDA, DAVID R VS SOTO SR, FRANK
Miranda v. Soto, Sr., et al. Plaintiff David R. Miranda’s Motion to Vacate Prefiling Order Issued on June 10, 2016 and Removal of Vexatious Litigant’s Name from Judicial Council’s List of Vexatious Litigants Pursuant to CCP § 391.8 and CCP § 377.20 is placed off calendar. Background On May 25, 2012, Plaintiff David R. Miranda (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for common counts against Defe...
..motion to dismiss the Complaint, finding that Plaintiff failed to post security as ordered. On April 12, 2017, the court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Dismissing the Action, and Motion to Vacate the June 10, 2016 Order, and continued both to May 11, 2017. The court again ordered Plaintiff to post $5,000.00 security and warned that the court could not consid...
Recent Rulings on Application for Order to Vacate Prefiling Order and Remove Plaintiff/Petitioner from Judicial Council Vexatious Litigant List
It broadly cites to Code of Civil Procedure sections 391 to 391.8 and indicates that “additional evidence may show that Bacchus also violated CCP 391(b)(1).” (Motion, p. 2:2-7.)
MANKARUSE V. RAYTHEON COMPANY
In any event, the proper way to vacate a prefiling order is under Code of Civil Procedure §391.8. In order to vacate the prefiling order, plaintiff must make a showing that there is “a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order.” Id. at subd.(c). Plaintiff has made no such showing.
XXXXXXXXXX VS XXXXXXXXXX
. §§391-391.8) was enacted to curb misuse of the court system by self-represented litigants who repeatedly file baseless lawsuits or attempt to relitigate issues that were previously determined against them, and who thereby waste the time and resources of the court system and other litigants. (Shalant v Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1169; Marriage of Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 1339, 1345.)
ALEKSANDR BIBLE VS GEICO INDEM
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND REQUEST FOR SECURITY AND PRE-FILING ORDER (CCP §§ 391.1-391.8) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Geico Indemnity Company, LLC’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Request for Security and Pre-Filing Order is DENIED. I.
(CCP § 473(b)), nor that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the vexatious order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order (CCP § 391.8). The motion to dismiss is DENIED.
(CCP § 391.8(a).) Request to Enter Judgment Plaintiffs Alvin E. Williams and Judith M. Brown-Williams once again move the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) to enter a final judgment based upon a July 2, 2007 jury verdict, against Bentley Motors, Inc. and Rusnak Pasadena in BC342574 in the total amount of $100,394,833,600.00.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Prefiling Order Issued on June 10, 2016 and Removal of Vexatious Litigant’s Name from Judicial Council’s List of Vexatious Litigants Pursuant to CCP § 391.8 and CCP § 377.20 on April 15, 2019. To date, Plaintiff has neither obtained a prefiling order, nor posted security. Accordingly, the motion is placed off calendar.
Fairchild’s motions to vacate their prefiling orders and remove their names from the Judicial Council’s Vexatious Litigant List pursuant to CCP § 391.8. The court’s order noted that Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild may not file another application for such relief until at least 12 months after the date of that order. (CCP § 391.8(b).) On February 28, 2019, Ms. Fairchild filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s January 3, 2019 order. However, on March 4, 2019, Ms.
ETTA HINDRA VS MRS JOYCE ESSEX HARVEY
(CCP § 391.8(a).) Ms. Hindra reserved a hearing for a motion to vacate prefiling order in Department 1 for February 14, 2019. Ms. Hindra has not filed any documents relating to this hearing, and the time to file documents for a February 14, 2019 hearing has passed. (CCP § 1005.) Accordingly, Etta Hindra’s motion to vacate prefiling order is taken OFF CALENDAR.
(See CCP § 391.8(c).) As set forth in CCP § 391.8(b), Mr. Hollywood and Ms. Fairchild may not file another application for this relief until at least 12 months after the date of this order. Clerk to give notice.
MONTIEL V. GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
. § 391.8(c). Plaintiff had failed to show both (1) a material change in facts since the order was entered against her and (2) that justice would be served by vacating the order.
BISCHOF, DAVE VS ADUT, ANNA
Legal Standard “The vexatious litigant statutes (§§ 391–[391.8] ) are designed to curb misuse of the court system by those persistent and obsessive litigants who, repeatedly litigating the same issues through groundless actions, waste the time and resources of the court system and other litigants.” (In re Marriage of Rifkin and Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1345.)
FUDGE VS. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, AND ITS PLANNING COMMISSION
As a result, the Court awards Petitioner attorney fees totaling $126,850 (Calculated as follows: $700 x 47.8 hours = $33,460 for attorney Hsaio; $400 x 391.8 hours = $156,720 for attorney Hofer. Total fees of $190,180 x .667 = $126,850). (2)PETITIONER’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS Petitioner’s motion to tax the City’s costs is GRANTED in the amount of $8,812.69. The City claims costs in the amount of $13,219.03 for preparation of the supplemental administrative record.
CLARK VS. CLARK FAMILY TRUST
HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE PRE-FILING ORDER & REMOVE FROM LIST FILED BY DIDDO CLARK * TENTATIVE RULING: * This matter has been transferred to Presiding Judge Jill Fannin pursuant to CCP 391.8(a). Judge Fannin has taken the matter under submission and will issue an order without the need for a hearing.
GENTHNER V. FIRST HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER OF FRESNO, INC.
Plaintiff also appears not to have successfully sought to set aside the determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §391.8. Therefore, this Court should not consider attacks on the propriety of the determination that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. With respect to the issue of the delay in filing this claim, Plaintiff claims that she is the victim of a conspiracy, and made many attempts to obtain a consultation with a doctor regarding the “foreign body” in her abdomen.
Under CCP section 391.8, the court may vacate "a prefiling order and order removal of a vexatious litigant's name from the Judicial Council's list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders upon a showing of a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order." (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.8.) Plaintiff is on the court's vexatious litigant list, but there is no prefiling order to be vacated.
. § 391.8(b) (emphasis added).) Accordingly, California Code of Civil Procedure § 391.8(b) requires the denial of Plaintiff's so-called "renewed" motion of July 24, 2014, and, to the extent they were not clearly ruled upon in the Court's order of June 23, 2014, the denial of requests made in Plaintiff's motion of June 16, 2014.