A vexatious litigant is someone who repeatedly runs court cases that are bound to lose. This wastes court time, opponents’ costs and runs up debts. Here, eventually the person is banned from initiating legal action.
How are they dealt with in various jurisdictions? I’m mainly interested in the US, where I imagine this a potentially touchy issue. I know this the sort of thing you turn to wikipedia for, but its page is pretty thin. It does however mention the prompt for my question: in an usual development, a local vexatious litigant got permission to sue.
A vexatious litigant can be a large pain in the butt to deal with, and there isn’t really any good solution.
Another lawyer at my old firm was dealing with one for years and years. We had a whole file of orders from courts around the New York area barring her from filing a suit without permission from the court. She’d bring actions in different counties, federal courts, arbitrations and do whatever else she could. Needless to say, she wouldn’t comply with court orders, discovery and the like. It cost the client a ton of money to deal with her.
In the Supreme Court, vexatious litigants are routinely prohibited from filing petitions in forma pauperis (as a poor person, without paying the filing fees and meeting the brief printing requirements) when they abuse the court’s patience. SeeMartin v. D.C. Court of Appeals.
In California, a vexatious litigant is not banned from initiating legal action. Instead, if someone is found to be a vexatious litigant, the court can require the litigant is required to get permission to sue (something in the nature of a restraining order).
In other cases, a defendant can bring a motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The defendant must prove that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant (by showing that she meets the standards set out in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 391(b). McComb v. Westwood Park Ass’n sets out the structure pretty well (free registration may be required).
From a broader perspective, this kind of motion is akin to an anti-SLAPP motion (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). A SLAPP suit is one that is brought primarily to squash constitutionally protected activitiy (like free speech). Like a motion to declare someone a vexatious litigant, an anti-SLAPP motion stays the action, and requires the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence to demonstrate that the plaintiff is likely to succeed in the underlying action. Without that evidence, the plaintiff loses, the action is struck, and the plaintiff is not permitted to bring suit based upon that theory again.
Both of these are tools that have been developed by the courts and legislatures to get frivolous lawsuits out of the courts early, with a minimum cost. hawthorne, your comment that this is a “potentially touchy issue” likely refers to the fact that the litigant is required to produce evidence to support her case at a much earlier stage of the game. Normally, a plaintiff only has to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim” (see Conley v. Gibson) to survive early challenges. After that, she can engage in discovery, where she can force the defendant to provide her with further evidence to support her claims.
The vexatious litigant statute, like the anti-SLAPP statute, attempts to strike a balance between a plaintiff’s right to petition, and a defendant’s right to speech, association, etc. The crux of the vexatious litigant statute is the notion that the litigant is attacking others solely to abuse and harass them. Balanced against a defendant’s right to be free from such abuse, and coupled with a procedural device that ensures the vexatious litigant a hearing – it doesn’t bar the courtroom doors – I think it’s a fair balance.