 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Opong-Mensah v. Stracener6/29/2004
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
"Free access to the courts is an important and valuable aspect of an effective system of jurisprudence . . . ." (Young v. Redman (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 827, 838; see also In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 648.) Thus, courts adhere to a broad variety of policies in order to ensure access to the courts. For example, to avoid a chilling effect on the assertion of claims, we employ a stringent standard for determining when litigation is frivolous. (In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 650.) Although we frequently say in propria persona litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys (Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121), we scrutinize submissions by such persons to ensure that potentially meritorious claims are not lost as the result of inept presentation.
On the other hand, the policy of the law requires that litigants promptly present their claims and diligently prosecute them to conclusion. Accordingly, provisions such as statutes of limitation and mandatory dismissal statutes are employed to ensure prompt and diligent resolution of disputes. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 312 et seq., 583.110 et seq.; further section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.)
Another essential requisite of an effective judicial system is the finality of judgments. "Public policy and the interest of litigants alike require that there be an end to litigation." (Panos v. Great Western Packing Co. (1943) 21 Cal.2d 636, 637; see also Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 797.) Thus, legal doctrines such as res judicata are employed to ensure "that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled as between the parties." (Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Asso. (1931) 283 U.S. 522, 525 [75 L.Ed. 1244, 1247]; see also Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie (1981) 452 U.S. 394, 401 [69 L.Ed.2d 103, 110-111].)
These policies need not conflict, and our policies to promote free access to the courts presuppose that the parties will act in good faith. (Young v. Redman, supra, 55 Cal.App.3d at p. 838.) However, courts occasionally are confronted with the phenomenon of the vexatious litigant--a person who, in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious litigation, repetitiously seeks to relitigate matters that have been finally determined, or engages in frivolous, harassing, or delaying litigation tactics. "Bluntly speaking, the judicial system does not have the resources to indulge petulant litigants." (Portola Hills Community Assn. v. James (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 289, 294-295, disapproved on another ground in Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 386.) Courts are not powerless to take appropriate action to deal with such persons. (§ 391 et seq.)
Usually when a trial court takes action against a vexatious litigant, an appellate court can look back and conclude that such action was long since warranted. So it is here. On a record which unquestionably establishes that plaintiff Kofi Opong-Mensah (hereafter plaintiff) is a vexatious litigant, the trial court took action by declaring plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant, requiring him to post security as a condition of continuing this action, and entering a prefiling order prohibiting h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|