 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mir v. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center2/24/2003
did not override the fact that his filings were frivolous. (Id. at p. 653.) The court concluded: "Mir has sought to recover over $27,000,000 in damages for the Hospital's decision not to accord him privileges. A prayer for this amount of money forces an opposing party to mount a `vigorous and costly defense.' Id. We are persuaded that Mir acted unreasonably in bringing an action for $27,000,000 in the face of clear authority that each claim was barred by procedural limitations.
"Finally, Mir has been contending for over nine years that the Hospital's decision to deny him cardiac surgery privileges was improper. In every forum that he has raised this issue he has either been defeated on the merits or his action has been barred for failure to overcome obvious procedural requirements. We agree with the district court that his continued pursuit of this matter is a blatant attempt to harass the Hospital into granting him the privileges they denied him nine years ago. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's sanction award." (Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., supra, 844 F.2 at p. 653.)
In In re Shieh (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1154, the Court of Appeal in declaring Shieh to be a vexatious litigant reviewed a United States district court order concerning Shieh's litigation conduct which, the district court said, Shieh had carried out in bad faith and for vexatious reasons. (Id. at p. 1166.) The California Court of Appeal in relying on the district court's declaration and imposition of sanctions against Shieh stated that the district court had "declared Shieh to be a vexatious litigant." (Ibid.)
The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hospital, supra, 844 F.2d 646, likewise adequately declares Mir to be a vexatious litigant within the meaning of subdivision (b)(4). Since the Ninth Circuit's opinion issued in 1988, Mir has certainly not changed his mode of operation. Imposition of sanctions has not provided any apparent deterrence. On the basis of subdivision (b)(4) it is also quite appropriate and reasonable for us to declare Mir a vexatious litigant. The statute is intended to provide some protection to persons who are targets of a vexatious litigant, "one of these obsessive and persistent litigants whose conduct can cause serious financial results to the unfortunate object of his attack. The purpose of the statutory scheme is to deal with the problem created by the persistent and obsessive litigant who has constantly pending a number of groundless actions . . . ." (First Western Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 860, 867-868.)
In any event, however, the superior court in Mir v. Law Offices of Rushfield, Shelley & Drake LLP, et al., supra (No. TC015566), has also more recently declared Mir to be a vexatious litigant. That court required Mir to post a bond before proceeding and also issued a prefiling order in accordance with section 391.7. (We have not been informed whether appellate review has been sought in that matter.)
B. The Application of Sections 391.1 and 391.7
Because Mir meets the definitions of "vexatious litigant" provided in section 391, subdivision (b), we next address the consequences of that declaration. Section 391.1 provides: "In any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security. The motion must be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that he [the plaintiff] will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant." Respondents hav
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|