Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer and Mark B. Plummer have filed countless vexatious and harassing lawsuits which include actions against associate attorneys, his co-counsel, his own clients, as well as against his own relatives. Plaintiff Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer files in pro persona, serial lawyer driven litigation against the same defendants and meritless cases.
The public court record show that a number of defendants have filed motions seeking to deem him a vexations litigant under California's Civil Code of Procedure section 391.
Mark B. Plummer has had a number of prior adverse determinations and dismissals against it based on appellate court case numbers G053836 and G057721, and Orange County Superior Court (OCSC) case numbers 30-2019-01069271, 30-2018-01014163, 30-2014-00759128, 30-2019-01113991, 30-2015-00785129, and 30-2011-00524331.
Defendants have also filed motions alleging that Mark Plummer is an alter ego of His law office.
There are other adverse determinations and dismissal in Plummer filed pro per cases based on appellate court case number B246940, OCSC case numbers 30-2016-00831688 and 30-2011-00525808, ADR Case No. 11-2638-AA, and Los Angeles Superior Court Case (LACSC) Number BC479944.
Representative case are also found online.
Law-Offices-Of-Mark-B.-Plummer,-Pc-vs.-Mark-Costa 30-2011-00530930-CL-CO-CJC
This section is informational and not legal advice.
The California legislature codified the “vexatious litigant” statutes Code of Civil Procedure §391 because of flagrant abuse of the courts by certain pro per litigants who abuse the court system and obsessively sue defendants.
The legislature recognized that these types of litigants can abuse defendants and waste court resources.
The definition of a vexatious litigant requires one acting without legal counsel “in propria personsa” – and that includes attorneys who in some years file more cases in pro per on behalf of themselves than any actual clients.
This is because it is assumed that the cost of hiring legal counsel would act as a disincentive to any possible vexatious litigant thus only those representing themselves are so defined.
The cost of litigation and attorney fees in the United States can be extreme and even a party that defends a case and wins often faces significant damages in the time lost and the expense of the defense.
It is not uncommon for even a simple civil case to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend. And that does not take into account the lost time, opportunity, and the resulting distress for defendants. Often vexatious litigant attorneys who represent themselves have no attorney fees incurred for filing countless suits. Meanwhile, the defendant(s) continue to pay large amounts of money on defense and have no choice but to incur cost for defending themselves.
MARK PLUMMER AND LAW OFFICES OF MARK PLUMMER
Mark Plummer and Law offices of Mark Plummer sue a lot of people on their own behalf in pro per.
Mark Plummer explains his basis for filing these countless lawsuits against his own clients and other attorneys under oath in his Income and Expense Declaration in ¶7 “Business is so bad working out of home” and ¶9 “Business is slow, costs are high; I need to cover overhead and payroll”.
Court have stated that “[t]he constant suer for himself becomes a serious problem to others than the defendant he dogs. By clogging court calendars, he causes real detriment to those who have legitimate controversies to be determined and to the taxpayers who must provide the courts.” (Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 73, 74 (Talifero))
Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer and Mark B. Plummer (collectively “Plummers”) have been alleged to be alter ego plaintiffs of each other, who in pro persona, initiated and maintained the requisite 5 Superior Court and appellate level cases within the last 7 years which either ended in judgment or rulings adverse to their position, or in dismissals.
A number of defendants have filed motions under Code of Civil Procedure §391(b)(1) alleging and setting forth facts in order to deem Mark Plummer a vexatious litigant. Those pleadings and orders are publicly available online at the Orange County Superior Court.
Courts have ruled that an attorney and his law firm or corporation may be deemed vexatious. Say & Say, Inc. v. Ebershoff (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1759, 1766-1770
Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer files Vexatious lawsuits
Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer (LMP) has had a number of prior adverse determinations against it or dismissals.
Public court records show these are alleged to include rulings based on appellate court case numbers G053836 and G057721, and Orange County Superior Court (OCSC) case numbers 2014-00759128, 2011-00524331, 2018-01014163, 2015-00785129, 2015-00785129, and 2019-0106927.
-
On Nov 9, 2017 Plaintiff LMP filed Case No. G053836 Law Offices of Mark B Plummer, PC vs Bayuk et al. The named appellant in appellate court case number G053836 was “Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer PC” (LMP). This case qualifies as an adverse determination against LMP because the appellate court affirmed the judgment against LMP in OCSC case number 2014-00759128.
-
On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff LMP initiated Case No. G057721 Law Offices of Mark Plummer vs. Alai et al. in the Fourth District Court of Appeals, and on September 11, 2020 the Court of Appeals entered its final opinion against Plaintiff and affirmed the trial court’s order. The named appellant in appellate court case number G057721 was “Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer PC.
-
On November 21, 2011 Plaintiff LMP filed OCSC case No. 2011-00524331, the named plaintiff is “Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer, PC.” This case resulted in a dismissal filed on April 1, 2014.
-
On December 02, 2014 Plaintiff LMP filed Case No. 2014-00759128 Law Offices Mark B Plummer, PC vs. Bayuk et al. a
-
On August 22, 2018 Plaintiff LMP filed OCSC Case 2018-01014163 Law Offices of Mark B Plummer, PC vs. Seven to Seven and Advance Occupational and Hand Therapy. On March 3, 2020 the case was determined through trial adversely to Plaintiff. The named plaintiff in this case was “Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer PC”.
-
On May 10, 2019 Plaintiff filed Case. No. 30-2019-01069271 Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer vs. Mark Sugamele which resulted in a dismissal without prejudice on June 6, 2019. The named Plaintiff in Superior court case number 30-2019-01069271 was “Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer PC”.
-
On November 22, 2019 Plummer filed OCSC Case No. 30-2019-01113991-CL-BC-CJC Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer, PC Vs. KTM Enterprises, Inc for “breach of contract. This resulted in a dismissal on December 20, 2019.
-
On November April 29, 2015 Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer filed OCSC Case No. 30-2015-00785129 Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer, PC Vs. Leonard Riley. This resulted in a court ordered dismissal on August 16, 2016.
Plaintiff “Mark B. Plummer” files Vexatious lawsuits.
Mark B. Plummer is a bombastic plaintiff who in pro persona initiated and maintained Superior Court and appellate level cases which ended in judgment or rulings adverse to Plummer’s position, or in dismissals.
Mark B. Plummer has had at least five prior unfavorable determinations or dismissals against him based on appellate case numbers B246940, OCSC case numbers 30-2016-00831688 and 30-2011-00525808, ADR Case No. 11-2638-AA, and Los Angeles County Superior Court (LACSC) Case Number BC479944.
-
On Jan. 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed the OCSC case captioned Mark Plummer Vs. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 30-2016-00831688-CU-FR-CJC. As to OCSC case number 30-2016-00831688, the named plaintiff was “Mark B. Plummer” and was dismissed.
-
In February 2014, Plaintiff “Mark B. Plummer” in pro per filed Case. No. B246940 in the Second Appellate District captioned Plummer v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., and that case was finally determined adverse to Plaintiff. As to case B246940, the named appellant is “Mark B. Plummer.”
-
LACSC case number BC479944, the named Plaintiff is “Mark B. Plummer.” LACSC BC479944 qualifies as an adverse determination against “Mark B. Plummer” because the judgment was against “Mark B. Plummer” as shown by appellate court case B246940.
-
OCSC case number 30-2011-00524331, the named plaintiff is “Mark B. Plummer.” It resulted in a dismissal filed on April 1, 2014;
-
OCSC case number 30-2011-00525808, the named plaintiff is “Mark B. Plummer.” OCSC case 30-2011-00525808 it resulted in a dismissal.
-
On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff Mark Plummer filed OCSC case number 30-2011-00525808-CU-CL-CJC Mark B. Plummer vs. Bank of America.
-
On May 26, 2020 Plaintiffs Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer and Mark Plummer filed OCSC Case. No. 2020-01141868 and on December 2, 2020 Plaintiffs filed a dismissal without prejudice.
Informational Reference: LEGAL STATUTE
A.California’s Statute
Section §391(b) defines a vexatious litigant as a person who does any of the following:
(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing;
(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined;
(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay; or
B.Criteria for Vexatious Litigant
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §391(b), there are three distinct paths in which a self-represented individual may be declared vexatious: (1) Commencing and/or maintaining at least five prior in pro per suits in the immediately preceding seven-year period that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.
“Finally determined” means that all avenues for direct review (appeal) have been exhausted or the time for appeal has expired. Fink v. Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173; Childs v. PaineWebber Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 982, 994. Voluntarily dismissing the action counts as an adverse decision. Tokerud v. Capitol Bank Sacramento (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 775, 779; (2) Relitigating as an in pro per on more than two occasions either (i) the validity of an earlier final determination against the same defendant or (ii) any of the claims or issues reasonably subsumed within the earlier actions. Holcomb v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1504. There is a split of authority whether the relitigation must be in the same proceeding. Compare Camerado Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 838 [same action], with Homcolb, supra [not necessarily]. (3) Repeatedly filing as an in pro per unmeritorious motions and papers, or otherwise engaging in tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. It falls within the trial court’s discretion to determine what qualifies as “repeated” and “unmeritorious” motions/tactics. See Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 971-972 [dozens of motions in a single action]. Multiple requests for the same relief or for reconsideration of prior rulings might qualify. See Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 632.
C.The Term “Litigation” is Broadly Defined.
Garcia v. Lacey (Garcia) (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 402, 406, 407, states “A court may declare a person to be a vexatious litigant who, in ‘the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been . . . finally determined adversely to the person. . . .’ [Citation.] The term ‘“[l]itigation” ’ is defined broadly as ‘any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained or pending in any state or federal court.’ [Citation.] A litigation includes an appeal or civil writ proceeding filed in an appellate court. [Citations.] A litigation is finally determined adversely to a plaintiff if he does not win the action or proceeding, he began, including cases that are voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff. [Citations.] (Footnotes 4 and 5 omitted.) “An action is counted as being within the ‘“immediately preceding seven-year period’ ” so long as it was filed or maintained during that period. [Citation.] The seven-year period is measured as of the time the motion is filed. [Citation.] (Id., at p. 406, footnote 4.)
Vexatious Litigants.
“The purpose of the vexatious litigant statutes ‘is to address the problem created by the persistent and obsessive litigant who constantly has pending a number of groundless actions and whose conduct causes serious financial results to the unfortunate objects of his or her attacks and places an unreasonable burden on the courts.’” (In re Kinney (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 951, 957-958.) The constant suer for himself is a problem. (Taliaferro)
Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b), can apply to a corporation that acts as the alter ego of an individual. (Say & Say, Inc. v. Ebershoff (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1759, 1766-1770 and Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Association (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1300, 1313.)