class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

FORUM

« Maag suit, pt. II: What trial lawyers think | More on Maag »

December 24, 2004


Calif.'s "vexatious-litigant" law

It's unconstitutional, argues veteran San Francisco litigant Burton Wolfe, who's filed more than 40 lawsuits in his home town and, per the Recorder, says he's "settled about 25 for a total of $200,000 or so". The Ninth Circuit is letting his suit go forward.

"People on the [vexatious-litigant] list can be required to get permission from their local presiding judge or post security bonds before filing any more suits. There are several ways to get listed, including the repeated filing of pointless suits. For Wolfe, it was his repeated losses in lawsuits over the employment status of cab drivers." By all accounts, judges don't invoke the vexatious-litigant statute very often; one recent high-profile instance, involving serial disabled-rights complainant Jarek Molski, was discussed Dec. 12 on Overlawyered.

Posted by Walter Olson at 09:51 AM | TrackBack (0)



categories:
Procedure









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.