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: http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insurancelaw/blogs/insurancelawblog/archi…
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: http://www.dailyjournal.com/cle.cfm?show=CLEDisplayArticle&qVersionID=290…
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: