When plaintiffs file enough cases that courts view as frivolous, the courts can generally declare the plaintiffs to be "vexatious litigants," and thus limit their ability to litigate future cases unless there's a preliminary showing that the cases are likely to be meritorious. The rules vary from state to state, but California has a pretty well worked out system for dealing with such matters, and a list of thousands of vexatious litigants.
The March 6, 2025 decision by Judge Sarah Heidel in Doe v. Suarez (appeal pending) illustrates how this system can work in getting vexatious litigants' cases dismissed. And the case also shows the value to opposing parties of being able to find a vexatious litigant's past cases—and therefore one reason to forbid pseudonymous litigation by litigants who appear likely to be potentially vexatious. (Disclosure: The Jane Doe in this case had unsuccessfully sued me for having identified some of her past pseudonymous lawsuits.) Here's an excerpt from the case:
This case arises from an allegation of sexual assault. According to the complaint, plaintiff Jane Doe met defendant online and the two arranged to meet for dinner. Following dinner, and after an evening of heavy drinking, plaintiff alleges defendant raped her. After that encounter the two exchanged texts for another month and a half. Plaintiff alleges that during this time she came to believe that defendant had supplied her with alcohol at their first date "with the intention of raping her.["] …
[Plaintiff] had been placed on the list of vexatious litiga[nts] by the Judicial Coun[cil] …. A vexatious litigant is "a person who has, while acting in propria persona, initiated or prosecuted numerous meritless litigations, relitigated or attempted to relitigate matters previously determined against him or her, repeatedly pursued unmeritorious or frivolous tactics in litigation, or who has previously been declared a vexatious litigant in a related action." …
{"In any litigation pending in any court of this state, at any time until final judgment is entered, a defendant may move the court, upon notice and hearing, for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security or for an order dismissing the litigation …. The motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish security shall be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is not a reasonable probability that they will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant."}
