Background
Michelle Adams sued Max Adams in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. Before she voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit, Max Adams moved to have her declared a vexatious litigant under section 68.093, Florida Statutes, and requested both statutory remedies and additional sanctions under the trial court’s inherent authority.
Michelle Adams responded to the motion but declined to attend the noticed hearing despite receiving proper notice. The circuit court found that her litigation history in Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit and federal courts showed repeated frivolous filings, delay tactics, baseless disqualification motions, requests for unwarranted relief, and disobedience of court orders. It imposed the Act’s filing restrictions, barred her from representing herself in pending Eleventh Judicial Circuit actions, and directed the clerk to deactivate her electronic-filing privileges.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed. It held that competent, substantial evidence supported the vexatious-litigant designation and that the statutory sanctions closely tracked the remedies authorized by section 68.093. Those remedies included requiring Adams to obtain leave of court before filing a new pro se action in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and directing the clerk not to accept a new pro se action without such authorization.
The court also held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by using its inherent authority to prohibit Adams from continuing to represent herself in pending Eleventh Judicial Circuit cases and to deactivate her e-filing privileges. It rejected her due-process challenge because Max Adams’s motion expressly requested the specific nonstatutory sanctions, she responded to that motion, and she had notice and an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. A separate show-cause order would therefore have been duplicative.
Key Takeaways
- A documented pattern of frivolous filings, delay tactics, and disregard of court orders can support a vexatious-litigant finding under Florida law.
- A trial court’s inherent authority may support broader restrictions on abusive pro se litigation than the Vexatious Litigant Law expressly provides, including restrictions in pending cases and deactivation of e-filing privileges.
- When a sanctions motion clearly identifies the requested restrictions and the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to respond and attend a hearing, due process does not necessarily require a separate show-cause order.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Florida trial courts may combine the remedies in the Vexatious Litigant Law with carefully imposed sanctions under their inherent authority to protect judicial resources from abusive pro se litigation. It also emphasizes that due process turns on meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard, rather than the issuance of a particular form of order.
Although Adams’s e-filing privileges were deactivated, she may still submit in paper form a prefiling motion seeking leave to commence a new pro se action, preserving the statutory procedure for pursuing a potentially meritorious claim.