Associate Attorney
In Amatulah v. Palmier, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the Third District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s order that the plaintiff’s litigation history placed her within the definition of a vexatious litigant, but reversed in part the trial court’s order for an overstep: declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant without first giving her a chance to respond.
The case was brought by a self-represented plaintiff who had a long history of litigation involving the same parties and similar claims. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint on grounds that it failed to state a cause of action — after labelling the plaintiff a vexatious litigant under Florida Statutes § 68.093(2)(c)(2).
The Third DCA reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to issue an order to show cause, on reasonable notice and with opportunity to respond, before rendering an ultimate determination as to vexatiousness. Why? Because due process matters. The court held that even if the record appears to support a vexatious litigant finding, the plaintiff must be given notice and an opportunity to respond before the label is applied. Specifically, the trial court should have issued an order to show cause before entering the finding.
Citing its own precedent in Humes v. Solanki, 305 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the court reaffirmed the procedural safeguard required, even when the substantive conduct clearly qualifies.
Takeaway: Florida courts are free to protect judicial resources from repeat filers — but they must do so by the book. If you’re seeking (or opposing) a vexatious litigant designation, remember that procedure precedes punishment.
At Boatman Ricci, we defend clients not just on substance but also on process — because a procedural misstep can reverse even a well-founded ruling. Need help navigating vexatious litigant claims or responding to show cause orders? Contact our team to act swiftly and correctly.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.