you're reading...
Alex Kozinski, Dan Maguire -- Yolo County Superior Court Judge, Daniel David Dydzak, Dave Rosenberg -- Judge, Yolo County Superior Court, Judge John Coughenour, Judge Timothy Fall, Judicial Council, Judicial Council Watcher, Kerr & Wagstaffe, Kevin Clune, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Uncategorized

Court Declares Legal Scholar Dan Dydzak “Vexatious Litigant”

Consistent with our commitment to integrity and adherence to the highest level of ethical journalism, and in order to report on both sides of a story, The Leslie Brodie Report has no choice but to now report that Marina Del Rey-based legal scholar Dan Dydzak has been declared a “vexatious litigant.”

Under normal circumstances, a vexatious litigant must obtain leave of the court before filing any new claim.

Litigation is typically classified as vexatious when an attorney or a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without an attorney) repeatedly files groundless lawsuits and repeatedly loses.

In the federal system, in determining whether a litigant is a “vexatious litigant,” a court would normally apply the five factors set forth in the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986). Those factors are: (1) the litigant”s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative suits; (2) the litigant”s motive in pursuing the litigation, for example, whether the litigant had a good faith expectation of prevailing; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused unnecessary expense to the parties or placed a needless burden on the courts; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.  Source:…

In California, section 391 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines the qualifications of a vexatious litigant. Even though such status can bar a person from the courthouse, the statute has been held to be constitutional. (See Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP, 40 Cal. 4th 780 (2007); and Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007).)

Under section 391, a vexatious litigant typically is a pro se plaintiff who has (1) lost at least five pro se lawsuits in the preceding seven years, (2) sued the same defendant for the same alleged wrong after losing, (3) repeatedly filed meritless papers, or (4) used frivolous tactical devices or already been declared a vexatious litigant for similar reasons. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391(b); Wolfe, 486 F.3d at 1124.) Because the statute uses the disjunctive or, the court must separately evaluate each of the four factual scenarios, according to the Daily Journal.  Source:…

Previously, in the matter of Daniel David Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye, Judge John C. Coughenour ordered Mr. Dydzak to SHOW CAUSE (1) why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant, and (2) why he should not be prohibited from initiating any further litigation in this or any other federal court all eging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his disbarment without prior authorization from this Court or the presiding judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In the absence of such a showing, Mr . Dydzak will be declared a vexatious litigant under Local Rule 83-8 and will be required to provide security in the amount of $5,000 for each defendant against whom he seeks to proceed with Court authorization.

According to Dydzak (who publicly commented on Judicial Council Watcher) “matters are being contested appropriately.”

For more, please see:…

AND @:


About Leslie Brodie

Leslie Brodie is a reporter, writer, blogger, activist, and a religious leader in the community.


Comments are closed.



  • Yet Another Unlicensed Contractor Debacle 2017/07/10
    This story is late in publishing because the AOC (ahem, the judicial council) spent months drawing out our requests for information on a simple inquiry they should have been able to deliver on the same day it was received because what scant information they did provide was readily available to them. But they dragged out […]
  • Another Clifford Ham boondoggle in San Diego 2017/04/19
    More false promises of tunnels reaching out from jails to courthouses. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so because we’ve stated many times that ALL tunnel promises are false promises made to win local support of the projects and penciled out upon approval. What we find most disturbing is that Clifford Ham has a track […]
  • Writing our obit is a bit premature… 2017/04/06
    Welcome to 2017! Yeah, we know, a bit of time has passed since we’ve been hyperactive here. We’ve been a bit busy frying other fish.  If you consider yourself a progressive, you’ve already read and possibly even recognized our work elsewhere. We will be continuing those projects and check in here as not to neglect […]
  • Welcome to the first business day of our reinvigorated 10 year run! 2017/01/02
    Thanks to the sheer incompetence of Judicial Council staff leadership, we’re going to be spending the next ten years nipping at their heels. Last week, the San Francisco trial court ruled that the Jacobs entities maintained their contractors license and that the 22.7 million that the Judicial Council should have been able to recover is […]
  • Working for the Judicial Council and a pattern of racketeering activity 2016/10/31
    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows […]

RSS Drudge Report Feed

%d bloggers like this: