California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from That v. Alders Maint. Ass'n, G049216 (Cal. App. 2015):
A motion or pleading is "frivolous" if it is "so devoid of merit and be so frivolous that they can be described as a '"flagrant abuse of the system,"' have 'no reasonable probability of success,' lack 'reasonable or probable cause or excuse' and are clearly meant to '"abuse the processes of the courts and to harass the adverse party than other litigants."' [Citation.]" (Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 972.) Continually pleading the same rejected causes of action - indeed, continuing to file new cases at all was an entirely frivolous tactic in this case. As respondents pointed out in their motion below, appellant's principal complaint appeared to be that certain election rules were illegal. Filing a new case after each election was completely unnecessary to address any such illegality, if it existed, as a single ruling in a single case would apply to all future elections. Appellant only needlessly complicated the situation by filing action after action. We have little doubt that but for the vexatious litigant order, he would have continued to do so.
Page 17
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.