Federal Court Declares Serial CIPA Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant
Verdicts and Settlements
Category: Verdicts and Settlements
Case number: 2:26-cv-03070-RGK-CTS
Motion Ruling - Defense
Facts
On March 18, 2026, Vivek Shah, appearing pro se, sued Crain Communications, Inc. under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 631(a). The complaint alleged that Crain's website intercepted the contents of his electronic communications.
The filing was the latest in an extended series of materially similar actions. In the seven months preceding the ruling, Shah had filed seven complaints against seven different defendants, each containing nearly identical allegations tailored slightly to the target — and each resolved during the pleading phase, either by voluntary dismissal or dismissal by the court.
Crain Communications retained KJC Law Group. Rather than settle, the firm moved to have Shah declared a vexatious litigant and to enter a pre-filing order restricting future CIPA filings in the Central District.
Result
Judge R. Gary Klausner granted the motion in full.
Applying the four-factor standard of De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990), the Court found each requirement satisfied. In compiling the record, the Court cataloged at least 29 proceedings initiated by Shah between 2021 and 2026, most resolved at the pleading stage with a small remainder pending appeal. The Court separately noted that Shah had voluntarily incurred the costs of initiating at least 28 proceedings across four courts, not counting appeals.
The Court found the complaints were substantially similar to one another — either template versions of Shah's own CIPA complaints or copy-and-paste versions of pending class action matters. In one instance, his complaint was a near-copy of a filed class action complaint with the class allegations removed, and the Court flagged a series of other filings as duplicated in the same fashion.
The Court also drew on Shah's own First Amended Complaint, finding that he was well-acquainted with the industry practices that may violate CIPA and had the means and knowledge to verify whether a website was transmitting his search queries to a third party without consent — making the injury avoidable rather than merely repeated.
On the substantive findings, the Court identified a pattern in which Shah sought out potential CIPA violations, submitted enough search queries to attempt to establish the amount in controversy for subject matter jurisdiction, voluntarily dismissed upon a defendant's motion to dismiss, and never tried a CIPA claim on the merits. That pattern, the Court held, strongly indicated a purpose to harass defendants into coercive settlements rather than to seek redress in good faith. The Court rejected the argument that a cognizable legal theory insulates repeat filings from a vexatiousness finding, and observed that repeated filings asserting the same avoidable injury are suspect. It concluded with express substantive findings of frivolousness and harassment.
The Court addressed Shah's pro se status directly, acknowledging under De Long that it is a mitigating factor weighing against a vexatious litigant designation, but holding it is not a bar and could not outweigh the record before it.
The Court also relied on the principle that a party who repeatedly files baseless actions only to dismiss them when challenged is no less vexatious than one who litigates to an adverse judgment.
On tailoring, the Court adopted the language KJC proposed, holding it consistent with pre-filing orders upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007). The order requires Shah to obtain the court's permission before filing any new case in the Central District of California asserting claims under CIPA or other related digital privacy claims. It does not restrict his ability to file unrelated claims.
The Court denied the separate request that Shah post security for costs in this action, noting that a security of costs alone would not have adequately protected the court or defendants — and that any judge presiding over a future action falling under the pre-filing order retains discretion to impose that requirement.
Kevin J. Cole, KJC's managing partner, said Shah kept filing for years because companies would rather settle than pay to defend.
"I think most companies make a decision that it's just cheaper to settle with him than to fight it,” said Cole to the Daily Journal.
Cole said that he, his team, and the client went through the claims, found nothing to them, and chose to fight. He looked at how many cases Shah had filed and at the demand letters going out alongside them, and moved to have him declared a vexatious litigant.
"When we looked at how many cases he had filed... it just seemed like he fit the criteria for vexatiousness," Cole said.
The ruling comes as CIPA suits over website data collection continue to pile up. Plaintiffs' lawyers say the statute gives consumers a real way to enforce their privacy rights.
Cole said Shah is the best-known pro se plaintiff sending repeat CIPA demand letters. He does not expect the ruling to change how many CIPA cases get filed.
Judge
Hon. R. Gary Klausner
Court
United States District Court, Central District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff Vivek Shah (pro se)
Defendant Kevin J. Cole and W. Blair Castle (KJC Law Group APC)
Order
Dkt. 34, filed July 20, 2026