Motion to Declare Plaintiff Vexatious Litigant
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 06/10/2026 TIME: 9:00 and 9:01 A.M.
LINES 6- 25CV457483 Richard Chamberlain Line 6: Motion - Declare Plaintiff Vexatious Litigant 12 vs Please control click or scroll down to Line 6 Jason Chamberlain Lines 7 – 12: In light of 5/8/2026 dispositive ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the remaining motions are rendered moot and ordered off calendar. LINE 13 24CV469611 Danea Burleson Motion: Protective Order vs Bay Area Ketamine Center, Inc. et al LINE 14 25CV472916 Immigration Hearing: Demurrer Resettlement and Cultural Center Please control click or scroll down to Line 14 (“IRCC”), Inc. vs Cuong Nguyen et al LINE 15 25CV474936 Hoswualdo Lopez Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration vs Ford Motor Company Please scroll down to Line 15 et al 9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV37621 George Ku vs.
Hearing: Order of Examination Harald Herchen LINE 2 24CV430720 Capital One N.a. vs Hearing: Claim of Exemption Maurice Mcintosh et al The Court defers ruling on the debtor’s Claim of Exemption and requests additional documentation pursuant to CCP §703.540. Within 30 days, the debtor shall file and serve documentation supporting the claimed monthly expenses, including but not limited to:
• Proof of earnings; • Proof of rent or housing payments (such as a lease agreement, rent receipts, or bank statements reflecting rent payments);
Calendar Line 6 Richard Chamberlain v. Jason Chamberlain
Defendant moves for an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(3), and for issuance of a prefiling order under section 391.7.
Plaintiff opposes, arguing the motion is premature due to a pending motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment ruling, and further contending that his litigation conduct was justified by Defendant’s discovery responses and procedural posture.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(3), a “vexatious litigant” includes a person who, in any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, or engages in tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay or burden.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
There is no bright-line numerical threshold; courts consider the totality of litigation conduct. (See Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963.)
If a litigant is found vexatious, the Court may enter a prefiling order prohibiting the litigant from filing new litigation in propria persona without prior leave of the presiding judge. (CCP § 391.7.)
ANALYSIS
A. Repeated Filing of Motions and Papers
The record reflects Plaintiff filed approximately 35 to 37 motions, applications, or similar requests for relief in this action within a 12-month period. None resulted in substantive relief in Plaintiff’s favor.
While lack of success alone is not dispositive, the volume and repetitive nature of motion practice—particularly in a single action and continuing after dispositive adjudication— supports a finding of abusive litigation conduct when considered in the totality of circumstances.
The Court further notes Plaintiff continued filing motions after entry of summary judgment, including motions directed at already adjudicated issues.
B. Unnecessary and Burdensome Discovery
The record reflects Plaintiff propounded in excess of 165 Requests for Admission, substantially exceeding statutory limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.030 for nondocument authenticity requests.
Many requests appear unrelated to the claims or defenses in this action and include allegations of serious misconduct not tethered to the operative pleadings.
The scope, volume, and subject matter of the requests support a finding of unnecessary and burdensome discovery practice.
C. Litigation Conduct and Record Inconsistencies
The Court also considers evidence that Plaintiff submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury asserting that Defendant had produced no documents, notwithstanding record evidence indicating prior service of discovery responses and multiple exhibits.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s communications with a witness who provided evidence in support of Defendant include language that may reasonably be construed as coercive in tone and effect.
The Court does not make separate findings beyond the scope of this motion regarding witness intimidation or misconduct, but considers these circumstances as part of the overall litigation pattern.
D. Plaintiff’s Opposition
Plaintiff argues the motion is premature due to a pending motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment ruling. This argument is not well-taken. A motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 does not operate as an automatic stay of proceedings and does not divest the Court of authority to hear and decide other properly noticed motions. The Court therefore rejects Plaintiff’s contention that the pending reconsideration motion precludes adjudication of this motion.
Plaintiff further argues that the volume of filings was necessitated by Defendant’s discovery conduct. The Court is not persuaded that this justifies the repeated filing of numerous motions and extensive discovery requests, particularly after dispositive adjudication of the action.
Plaintiff’s remaining arguments, including characterization of citation errors as clerical, do not materially alter the analysis under section 391(b)(3).
DISPOSTION
Considering the totality of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff, while acting in propria persona, has repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions and engaged in litigation practices that have imposed unnecessary burden on Defendant and the Court.
Accordingly, Defendant has established that Plaintiff meets the definition of a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(3).
ORDER
1. Defendant’s motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant is GRANTED.
2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any new litigation in propria persona in the courts of the State of California without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall transmit notice of this order as required for inclusion on the Judicial Council vexatious litigant list.
The Court will prepare the Order.
- oo0oo –