Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a complaint filed by a plaintiff previously designated a vexatious litigant who was required to obtain leave of court before filing new cases. The court denied permission to file the suit, struck the complaint, and closed the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of permission to file the complaint and striking of the complaint“The Court denies permission to file this suit. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE the complaint from the record and close this case.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the specific restrictions imposed in the prior vexatious litigant order. The plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirement that the new suit not arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts as previously dismissed claims. The court's finding that the new complaint recycles previously rejected claims supports the denial of leave. |
Closure of the case“The Clerk is directed to STRIKE the complaint from the record and close this case.” | agree with court Closure is the appropriate procedural consequence of striking a complaint that was filed without the required leave of court. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It relies on a prior, specific court order that governs the plaintiff's ability to file. The court correctly identifies that the plaintiff failed to meet the conditions of that prior order by attempting to relitigate claims arising from the same transactional nucleus of facts. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited prior order.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Aparna VASHISHT-ROTA, Case No.: 25-cv-0179-AGS-VET 4 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING COMPLAINT (ECF 1) AND CLOSING CASE 5 v. 6 HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Two weeks ago, this Court adjudged plaintiff Dr. Aparna Vashisht-Rota a “vexatious 10 litigant” for repeated misbehavior, including filing multiple “objectively frivolous” suits 11 against Howell Management Services and those in its immediate ambit arising from her 12 short-lived employment there. See Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Mgmt. Servs., No. 20-CV- 13 0321-AGS-KSC, 2025 WL 268855, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2025). The day after that court 14 order, Vashisht-Rota mailed in this suit, seeking once again to relitigate her claims against 15 that ex-employer and various individuals involved in the business. (See generally ECF 1; 16 see also ECF 1-4 (envelope dated “January 23, 2025”).) 17 Based on her new vexatious-litigant restrictions, Vashisht-Rota “may not file any 18 new cases” here without leave of court. To obtain such approval, she must first file a written 19 request, including, among other things, a copy of her proposed complaint and a 20 “declaration . . . under penalty of perjury that: (1) she has not previously brought a lawsuit 21 arising out of the same facts—or the same transactional nucleus of facts—asserted in the 22 new complaint; or (2) she has previously brought a lawsuit arising out of the same facts— 23 or the same transactional nucleus of facts—asserted in the new complaint, but the relevant 24 claims asserted in the prior lawsuit were not dismissed with prejudice.” Vashisht-Rota, 25 2025 WL 268855, at *4. Her new proposed complaint (including attachments) is about 26 280 pages long, and it recycles claims that have been rejected by this Court. In her 27 declaration, Vashisht-Rota claims otherwise “because some of the facts were not known to 28 me till September 25, 2023.” (ECF 1-1, at 2.) This is of no moment. The new proposed 1 || complaint indeed arises from the same transactional nucleus of facts as her prior lawsuits. 2 || So, it must be rejected. 3 The Court denies permission to file this suit. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE the 4 ||complaint from the record and close this case. It appears from the docket that no filing fee 5 || was accepted from plaintiff. If a filing fee was collected, however, the Clerk must refund 6 See Vashisht-Rota, 2025 WL 268855, at *4. (requiring that “no filing fee shall be 7 || accepted” if Vashisht-Rota is denied “advance[d] permission” to bring a new suit). 8 Dated: February 5, 2025 10 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28