Stokes v. First American Title Co. of Montana
2017 MT 274N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- John and Pamela Stokes appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit challenging a foreclosure; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal in a memorandum opinion.
- While the appeal was pending, appellees (First American Title Co. and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.) moved to have John Stokes declared a vexatious litigant and to impose a pre-filing requirement for his pro se filings or require lawyer certification under Rule 11.
- The Court summarized Stokes’ extensive litigation history, noting ten prior appearances before the Montana Supreme Court and multiple district-court orders criticizing his pro se pleadings as confused, harassing, duplicative, and procedurally deficient.
- Stokes’ briefs in this appeal were found to lack citations to record or authority, to make unsupported serious accusations about parties and judges, and to pursue claims without an objective, good-faith expectation of prevailing.
- The Court applied a five-factor test (from Molski and adopted in Motta) assessing (1) litigation history; (2) motive/likelihood of success; (3) representation by counsel; (4) expense/burden on others and the courts; and (5) adequacy of other sanctions.
- The Court concluded traditional sanctions were inadequate and entered a narrowly tailored pre-filing order that requires John Stokes to obtain pre-filing approval from the court before filing any pro se pleading in Montana district courts or the Montana Supreme Court; the order does not apply to Pamela Stokes but warns courts against misuse of her name.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether John Stokes should be declared a vexatious litigant | Stokes did not respond to the motion; generally argued appellate evidence was inadmissible | Appellees argued Stokes’ prolific, harassing, and duplicative pro se litigation history justifies vexatious-litigant status | Court: Yes; Stokes declared vexatious for pro se filings based on repeated harassing and frivolous litigation |
| Whether a pre-filing order is justified | (implicit) Stokes opposed use of other cases as evidence and defended right of access | Appellees: Pre-filing order necessary to protect parties and courts from needless expense and harassment | Court: Yes; pre-filing approval required for any pro se filing by Stokes in Montana courts |
| Scope of restriction when litigant is represented | Stokes argued broadly for access; did not demonstrate counsel absence justified restrictions | Appellees sought requirement to apply when Stokes acts pro se or after counsel withdrawal | Court: Narrowly tailored — applies only to Stokes’ pro se filings and filings after counsel withdraws |
| Whether lesser sanctions would suffice | Stokes implied monetary or evidentiary objections | Appellees: Monetary sanctions ineffective given prior history; stronger remedy needed | Court: Lesser sanctions inadequate; pre-filing order appropriately protects courts and parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Great Falls Sch. Dist. No. 1 & A, 773 P.2d 316 (Mont. 1989) (Montana Constitution’s access-to-courts right is not absolute; may be limited when rationally related to legitimate state interest)
- Motta v. Granite Cty. Comm’rs, 304 P.3d 720 (Mont. 2013) (adopted tests and principles for imposing pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants)
- Hartsoe v. Tucker, 309 P.3d 39 (Mont. 2013) (cited in prior imposition of pre-filing orders under Rule 19)
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (articulated multi-factor test for assessing whether pre-filing restrictions are justified)
- Stokes v. Duncan, 346 P.3d 553 (Mont. 2015) (example of Stokes’ prior appellate history relevant to assessing vexatious conduct)