In California, if someone has filed at least 5 unsuccessful lawsuits (except in small claims court) within 7 years, then someone who has been sued in the eighth case can ask a court to designate that person a “vexatious litigant.” This means that a person who has repeatedly filed frivolous, harassing or, at least, unsuccessful lawsuits within that time period will be barred from filing new lawsuits. The first 5 lawsuits not having merit isn’t the only issue; a court typically has to conclude that the lawsuits were intended to annoy or to burden others. But once designated, vexatious litigant must obtain court approval before filing any new lawsuits anywhere in the California state courts.
Which brings us to Gregory Steshenko.
Since 2017, he has filed multiple lawsuits against Foothill-De Anza Community College in Santa Clara County over what he claims was discrimination in his educational experience with the College. Among other things, he has claimed age discrimination, violation of his civil rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. And his latest case came to an end last month.
That lawsuit, in turn, stemmed from a judge who, fed up with Steshenko’s litigation tactics, declared him a vexatious litigant in January, 2021. The order that that judge issued provided that, unless represented by an attorney, and unless he filed a bond to cover the defendants’ costs in the existing litigation, he was prohibited from filing any new litigation unless he first got permission from the court.
Naturally, Mr. Steshenko appealed. While that first appeal was taking its leisurely stroll in the appellate courts, Mr. Steshenko filed another lawsuit against the College in November, 2021, based largely on the same issues that had been involved in (and ultimately led to the dismissal of) his earlier litigation. In response to the new, November, 2021 case, the College pointed to the existing “prefiling order” that said that he couldn’t file any new lawsuits (at least if he were acting as his own attorney) without court permission.
Steshenko argued that this case was not barred by the previous court finding that he was a vexatious litigant because that first case was, well, on appeal. The trial judge, however, eventually agreed with the College, finding that the new case was indeed barred by the January, 2021 “pre-filing order” and dismissed the second lawsuit for failure to secure permission to file it.
And (you saw this part coming, right?) he promptly appealed that second dismissal, too.
Appellate courts do not have infinite patience, and in appeal no 2, the court of appeal responded to Steshenko’s arguments with the judicial patience of someone who’s seen a friend perform the same party trick at one too many parties. It explained that a vexatious litigant designation doesn’t evaporate simply because that person filed a notice of appeal. So, in appeal no. 2, the court of appeal held that the January 2021 prefiling order remained effective while the earlier appeal ran its course. But the filing of the appeal in the first case hasn’t stayed the prefiling order, and therefore, appeal no. 2 was dismissed, too.
So, just in case anyone has gotten lost in the maze:
First, Steshenko is still barred by the January, 2021 order from filing any new litigation in California unless he is represented by an attorney, or gets permission from the court to file it ahead of time. (The court of appeal eventually ruled in the College’s favor in that case, too). And second, both his original lawsuit that led to his vexatious litigation scarlet letter, and his second lawsuit against the College were eventually dismissed — the second one because the order in the first case had actually still been in effect when he filed case no. 2.
The great irony, of course, is that the court of appeal chose to “publish” the second case, meaning that, thanks to his unsuccessful second appeal, Steshenko actually helped create new law. While the College likely doesn’t appreciate that it was the vehicle for this, at least in the future other courts will know what to do if someone gets declared a vexatious litigant, appeals that order, and then in the meantime files lawsuit no. 2.
But don’t feel too badly for Mr. Steshenko. He can still ask the California Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s decision. And, as it turns out, he has another case pending in federal court against the College that, apparently, is still going on.
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
Hence then, the article about judicial follies vexing the litigants was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: Vexing the litigants )
Also on site :
- Gwyneth Paltrow’s surprisingly racy Oscars 2026 dress is slit all the way up the sides
- Europe not interested in Ukraine peace process – Kremlin
- Conan O’Brien Starts Oscars by Roasting Timothée Chalamet’s Ballet and Opera Controversy as Camera Cuts to ‘Marty Supreme’ Star Laughing