Talk:Vexatious litigation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Recently I added the text of the judgment in Grepe v Loam to the Vexatious_Litigant website - someone might like to link it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.101.224 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Varian text[edit]

Removed the following line:

"It can last for years as in Varian v. Delfino, a case that ended in the California Supreme Court. "

kmccoy (talk) 08:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in propria persona[edit]

in propria persona occurs three times; if it has an English equivalent, use that. If it's a special and useful term it should have its own entry. If it's a one-shot special term it should be explained parenthetically after its first usage. --AC 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Why was the Cleanup template added? The article is not great but it's workable.Cutler 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

Does this exist in other part of the United States besides California? Having the article mention a lawsuit in Washington DC seems to imply that it does exist in other parts of the US, but the "Law by jurisdiction" section seems to imply otherwise.Ricree101 (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California Cleanup and Added Controversies Section[edit]

Cleaned up and completed discussion of California law, and added a discussion on Controversies.

-- I clarified that the California vexatious litigant standard applies to pro-se, or self-represented, litigants only. The use of Latin in the definition needed clarification. Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to make a separate subheading for this. Agnosticaphid (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't apply only to pro se. The first three do, but the fourth (filing a suit on the same subject matter for which the litigant has been declared vexatious in another jurisdiction) does not. TJRC (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's technically true, but not very helpful. There is no further explanation or discussion of the 4th category in the body of the article. It doesn't seem to be a large category of people. Unless you've already been found to be a vexatious litigant elsewhere, you can't be declared a vexatious litigant in California unless you're appearing pro se. Furthermore, the way the California section of the article is structured is extremely difficult to understand at a glance -- there is a heading and then a statutory citation that is cumbersome at best. I thought that it would be helpful to emphasize the otherwise-mostly-ignored-by-the-article role that pro se plays in the California vexatious litigant statute. It's nice that you linked to the pro se article but I still think it would be appropriate to mention pro se in this article. Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "not very helpful." Misinformation is less helpful. I added a clause on the intro to clarify that most cases of vexations litigation require pro se, and a short explanation of it. I have to continue to disagree with including a statement that all vexatious litigants must be pro se, because that's just wrong. I agree the California section is, in general, in need of improvement. It looks like someone just dumped the text of the statute into the article. I may take a stab at rewriting it into prose, if you don't get to it first. TJRC (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course, I didn't mean to be snarky. I think it's a lot more clear now. The reason I added it in the first place was because of a law review article I'd just read discussing how you need to be pro se to be vexatious under CA law. But that's a definite oversimplification. Agnosticaphid (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it never occurred to me that you were being snarky; so don't worry about it. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary moved from article to talk page[edit]

The following commentary has been moved from the article to here:

Increasingly lately, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and these laws have been abused by well-heeled and well-represented defendants to thwart lawsuits. As defendants, they frivolously bring meritless vexatious litigant motions as a expedient last resort when summary judgments, anti-SLAPP motions and demurrers seem headed for failure. Instead of discouraging meritless lawsuits, the law is misused to punish and defeat meritorious lawsuits by less affluent litigants and pro se plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their rights.
There is deepseated prejudice currently by judges in US Courts against Pro se legal representation in the United States, against those that attempt to represent themselves, despite the fact that it is Constitutionally guaranteed. US Judges often unjustifably assume that the only reason attorneys are not present is because the suit must be frivolous, without further examination. Judges are being trained in continuing education courses to overbroadly conflate self-representation with the anti-government common law movement. "The Anti-Government Movement Handbook", http://tulanelink.net/pdf/anti-gov_movement_guidebook.pdf. In truth, in many areas of the law, the financial incentive for an attorney to take a case is an unattractive one, and the law is essentially a business. Pro bono publico representation for good cases is scarce and not as available as many of these judges believe. The notion that a challenged plaintiff may remedy his situation by providing a bond, as a reason to find this statute Constitutional, is flawed. “The claim that the [double-bond] requirement operates to screen out frivolous appeals is unpersuasive,” the US Supreme Court noted, “for it not only bars nonfrivolous appeals by those who are unable to post the bond but also allows meritless appeals by others who can afford the bond” Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 92 S.Ct. 862, 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972), and experience teaches that such frivolous lawsuits by well-heeled plaintiffs are not uncommon.

While some citations are found in the text, the cited materials do not appear to support the opinions expressed -- such as "these laws have been abused by well-heeled...." and "There is deepseated prejudice...." and "US Judges often unjustifiably assume....." These kind of statements appear to be unsourced opinions. Stay tuned... Famspear (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this statement:

Increasingly lately, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and these laws have been abused by well-heeled and well-represented defendants to thwart lawsuits.

Is this the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who inserted the material, or is this the opinion of a previously-published third party source? If we can find a previously-published third party source who has expressed this opinion, then the material might be appropriate for the article. That does not mean looking for examples of where the laws have been abused, etc., etc. What that means is finding some previously-published third party source who has expressed this opinion.

Now this:

As defendants, they frivolously bring meritless vexatious litigant motions as a expedient last resort when summary judgments, anti-SLAPP motions and demurrers seem headed for failure.

Again, this is a statement of opinion. Whose opinion?

And this:

Instead of discouraging meritless lawsuits, the law is misused to punish and defeat meritorious lawsuits by less affluent litigants and pro se plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their rights.

Who says so? Whose opinion is this?

And this:

There is deepseated prejudice currently by judges in US Courts against Pro se legal representation in the United States, against those that attempt to represent themselves . . .

Who says so?

And this:

US Judges often unjustifably assume that the only reason attorneys are not present is because the suit must be frivolous, without further examination.

Again who is it that is saying that U.S. judges do this? Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MENZIES, Rowan Gavin Paton[edit]

The note does not show that the MENZIES, Rowan Gavin Paton listed by HM Court Service as a vexatious litigant is the same person as the author of 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. 84.23.155.88 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems different to me, I've moved the entry from the article to here:

Here's a good secondary source: Goodman, David S. G. (2006). "Mao and The Da Vinci Code: Conspiracy, Narrative and History". The Pacific Review 19 (3): 359–384. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a757572630~frm=titlelink. [2] Jojalozzo 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Her majesty's court service - Vexatious litigants". Retrieved 2008-07-06.
  2. ^ Goodman, David S. G. (2006). "Mao and The Da Vinci Code: Conspiracy, Narrative and History". The Pacific Review. 19 (3): 359–384. Retrieved March 14, 2011.

Notable vexatious litigants[edit]

Is it the purpose of this section to list those VLs who are notable other than as VLs or it it to list those who are notable as VLs or both? Jojalozzo 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see also Liebeck v McDonalds[edit]

I don't think that the link from this article to Liebeck v. McDonalds, in the "see also" section, is appropriate or helpful. While I know that some people assert (in my view, incorrectly, but that's not relevant) that that case is an example of frivolous litigation, I don't think there's any reason to characterize Ms Liebeck as a vexatious litigant. The article certainly doesn't mention any other cases she's brought.

Does anyone object to me removing this link? AgnosticAphid talk 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, so here goes! AgnosticAphid talk 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Red.com as a notable vexatious litigant[edit]

Red.com vs Epic Games 8:2008-cv-00494

Red.con vs LG Electric 8:2008-cv-00504

Red.com vs Netcast 8:2008-cv-01030

Red.com vs Sony 8:2013-cv-00546

Red.com vs Andrew Reid 8:2010-cv-01505

Red.com vs p Pixellexis 8:2011-cv-01155

Red.com vs Arri 8:2011-cv-01972

Red.com vs Tom Jordan 8:2012-cv-00380

Red.com vs Uniqoptics 2:2011-cv-03611

Red.com vs Nightsky Hostings 8:2012-cv-00034

Red.com vs Wooden Camera 3:2012-cv-01336

Red.com vs 24P,LLC 8:2007-cv-01013

Would someone please look into Oakley, Inc. Same original owner. Same attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.12.184 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do original research (or ought not to, anyway; sometimes it happens, but in those cases should be corrected) on Wikipedia. If it's noted in other sources as a vexatious litigant, it can be noted here. TJRC (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vexatious litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vexatious litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Vexatiousness' is not just about frivolous claims[edit]

Vexatious claims include those where the claimant is themselves a notorious lawbreaker using litigation to subdue or harass opponents, especially those unable to match the claimant's legal funds. Clearly this needs to be referenced with established examples - can someone please help me here?--Richard Comaish (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

In the current WP:LEAD, the sentence These legal actions occur[dubious – discuss] in some countries of the former..., taken in the context of the sentence that follows it, seems to say, without saying so explicitly, that vexatious litigation only occurs in common law countries. This is highly dubious, because unreasonable people exist all over the world. Probably the intended meaning is Procedures that prohibit vexatious legislation occur in some countries of the former.... If there are any reasons against changing to Procedures that prohibit vexatious legislation occur in some countries of the former..., then please state them. Boud (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is trying to say that the specific phrase "vexatious legislation" is used in common law countries? Anyway, I agree that is confusing and possibly incorrect. I'm not sure whether we need that paragraph in the lead at all. Your change would still leave it saying "Civil (codified/continental) law systems typically do not have a prohibition against vexatious litigation.[citation needed]" and I'm not even sure that that is correct. Should we remove the whole paragraph?DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vexatious_litigation&oldid=1209596562"