A serial plaintiff who has filed more than two dozen lawsuits against companies in the credit and collection industry has been ordered by a California federal judge to show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for making repeated misrepresentations about his financial status.
The background: The case began as a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff, who has filed 25 lawsuits in the District Court for the Central District of California since 2023, sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows individuals to pursue lawsuits without paying filing fees if they demonstrate financial hardship.
- In his filings, the plaintiff declared under penalty of perjury that he had not received any income in the previous year other than his regular salary. However, court records revealed that he had received settlement payments in at least three previous cases during that same period.
- Multiple other courts in the district had already dismissed his cases after finding that he had “deliberately concealed” this income to avoid paying filing fees.
- Despite being aware of those prior rulings and admonitions, the plaintiff continued to file cases without correcting his financial disclosures or updating the court about his settlement income.
The ruling: Judge Otis D. Wright II dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff’s allegations of poverty were “untrue” and that his repeated failure to disclose income was made in bad faith. The court noted that the plaintiff’s experience as a frequent litigant, having filed more cases than “many attorneys who practice in this District” made his conduct particularly concerning.
- Judge Wright also ordered the plaintiff to appear in person on December 8, to show cause why he should not be sanctioned $405, equivalent to the standard filing fee in the district. The court warned that failure to appear would result in automatic imposition of the sanction.
- In a particularly pointed passage, Judge Wright wrote: “Considering [the plaintiff’s] litigation experience in this District, his pattern of misrepresentations, and his continuing failure to correct the record, the Court finds that [he] deliberately concealed his sources of income to gain access to a court without prepayment of filing fees.”
