The Plaintiff, a vexatious litigant, applied to the Court for permission to continue the Action and take certain steps in advancing her Claim. As part of the Order declaring the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, the Plaintiff was required to apply to the Court with an Affidavit in support before being permitted to take any further steps. After reviewing the Affidavit in the context of the particular steps requested, the Court assessed the Plaintiff’s present litigation strategy to determine whether it could be considered vexatious.

Justice Manderscheid found that the Plaintiff’s actions disclosed a vexatious and frivolous litigation strategy intended to abuse Court processes. The Court went on to review the characteristics commonly associated with vexatious litigants and held that Rule 3.68(2)(c) authorizes the Court to dismiss an Action that is frivolous, irrelevant, or improper.

The Court found that the Plaintiff’s Action possessed many features of vexatious litigation, including that the Plaintiff’s present Action challenged conclusions already addressed in a different proceeding, contained sensational conspiratorial claims, and the Plaintiff had ignored prior Costs Orders. The Court held that these factors together provided a basis for dismissing the Action as frivolous and vexatious.