SENATE BILL NO. 226 "An Act relating to litigation brought by a vexatious litigant; amending Rules 3, 4, 12, and 41, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." Senator Hollis French read his sponsor statement: SB 226 creates a process in statute for courts to manage the problem of lawsuits brought by individuals who are "vexatious litigants." A vexatious litigant is defined as a person who, among other things, repeatedly litigates the same claims or previous adverse decisions against the same parties, files multiple frivolous lawsuits, repeatedly files pleadings or motions that are frivolous or in bad faith, or repeatedly engages in tactics that are without merit or intended to cause unnecessary delay. The bill allows the court to impose reasonable restrictions on vexatious litigants' access to the court. Under SB 226 a court can require conditions, such as the posting of security or pre-filing review of a complaint by a presiding judge, before an action filed by a vexatious litigant can proceed. Several states have passed similar legislation to control the problem of vexatious litigation. The provisions in this bill are based on California's Code of Civil Procedure. Vexatious litigation needlessly burdens the resources of the court system, and creates unnecessary expense for individuals who are the target of this litigation in the public and private sectors. It is certainly important to recognize and protect the individual's right to litigate claims in our court system. SB 226 will only affect those few cases that are clearly without merit. This bill will provide means for screening out extreme examples of meritless cases before they are filed. Please join me in supporting SB 226. 10:15:13 AM Senator Elton inquired about costs to the court system when making a decision if a litigant is vexatious or not. Senator French expressed his belief that the costs would be minimal since the cost of deflecting the lawsuit would be less than processing the lawsuit. Senator Elton questioned if there was any discussion on imposing a time limit. Senator French pointed out that on page 3, line 12-16, identifies a "vexatious litigant, a person who reacts without a lawyer, who: (A) commenced, prosecuted, or maintained as the plaintiff at least five litigations in state or federal court, other than small claims actions, during the preceding seven years 10:17:51 AM Senator Huggins asked what would happen if the sentence about "not" having an attorney was removed from the bill (page 3, line 12-13). Senator French answered that he did not believe this would affect the bill or any lawyer, but deferred to the Department of Law or the court system. Senator Elton wondered if someone suing multiple individuals over the same case could be classified as a vexatious litigant. 10:19:23 AM Senator French deferred the question to the Department of Law. 10:19:34 AM SUSAN COX, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUNEAU, responded to previous questions by the committee members. She answered the question regarding an individual filing lawsuits over a period of time, refraining for a time period, then resuming again. She indicated that this legislation was modeled after the California Code of Civil Procedure, enacted 40 years ago, where there is a process for having a pre-filing orders vacated. Ms. Cox reiterated that this legislation does not bar anyone's access to the courts, only places some restrictions precedent to litigating for vexatious litigants. 10:23:08 AM Senator Elton wondered about a person becoming a vexatious litigant, not over filing too many cases in the exacted time period, but filing multiple suits against different people over the same issue, such as a neighborhood situation. Ms. Cox responded again that the definition requires five different law suits over a seven year period and all decided adversely against the filer. 10:25:59 AM Senator Thomas inquired about how many people would be considered vexatious litigants if this bill were law today. Ms. Cox replied that about six people fall into this definition and another six against the Department of Corrections. In total, less than twenty people would be considered vexatious litigants. 10:27:28 AM Senator Huggins wondered if the sentence regarding attorneys on page 3, line 12-13, was struck from the bill, what would be the effect. Ms. Cox remarked that the intention of bill is directed toward those people who have abused the court system without the representation of a lawyer. Lawyers are controlled by contempt of court or ethics regulations. Senator Huggins suggested it would not hurt if taken out. Ms. Cox was not sure if it would add or take anything away from the bill. 10:28:58 AM Co-Chair Hoffman inquired how the five and seven year number was arrived at. Ms. Cox responded that it was simply modeled on the California plan that has been in place for over forty years. Senator Elton followed up on Senator Huggins' question about removing the "attorney" language and asked if this would become a problem for attorneys. Ms. Cox believed it would only penalize the plaintiff but there was some confusion in the language that could affect a lawyer who represented a vexatious litigant. 10:30:50 AM DOUG WOOLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, responded to Senator Elton's question about fiscal impact to the court system. He does not see any impact but noted that this bill will certainly be challenged before the court by the same people it is intended to target. Senator Elton wondered if Mr. Wooliver saw a negative or positive fiscal impact. Mr. Wooliver responded that there could be some time and effort saved by the court but this bill really targets just a handful of individuals and will not be used that often. 10:32:29 AM PETER MAASEN, LAWYER, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in support of SB 226. He believed this added a necessary tool for trial judges. Although he opposes anyone not having access to the court system, he agreed that sometimes situations can go too far. Mr. Maasen presented a personal trial case situation where a client repeatedly sued him and the trial judge when things did not go his way. This has been a costly situation to him personally and to the courts. 10:37:00 AM Mr. Maasen continued explaining the difficulties dealing with individuals who continue to tie up court time with multiple litigations. He supported this bill and believes it will be effective in dealing with such cases. 10:37:40 AM Senator French elaborated that the bill specifically notes that this only deals with those individuals who repeatedly file court cases after they have lost a judgment from the court. In all cases, the judge has the discretion of deciding if someone is indeed a vexatious litigant. 10:39:21 AM SB 226 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration. 10:39:27 AM