On July 20, 2026, Judge R. Gary Klausner of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to declare pro se plaintiff Vivek Shah a vexatious litigant and entered a pre-filing order barring him from filing any new action in the Central District asserting claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code § 630 et seq., or related digital-privacy claims, without leave of court. Vivek Shah v. Crain Communications, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03070-RGK-CTS (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (ECF No. 34).
The order is significant for any business that has received a CIPA demand letter, particularly one from Shah. It confirms that federal courts are not afraid to shut down serial privacy litigation that the court sees as designed to extract coercive settlements rather than adjudicate claims on the merits.
Shah sued Crain Communications, Inc. on March 18, 2026, alleging that Crain’s website (adage.com) intercepted the contents of his electronic communications in violation of CIPA § 631(a). The complaint was not an isolated filing. The court found, among other things, that:
- Twenty-nine proceedings initiated between 2021 and 2026, most resolved at the pleading stage, with a small remainder pending appeal.
- Seven nearly identical complaints filed against seven different defendants in the seven months preceding the order — none of which survived past the pleading phase. Each was voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the court.
- Several complaints were, per the court’s footnotes, near-copies of class action complaints filed by other plaintiffs in unrelated cases, with the class allegations simply stripped out.
Pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants are an extreme remedy given the constitutional right of access to the courts. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). Under De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147–48 (9th Cir. 1990), a district court must satisfy four requirements before entering such an order:
- Notice and opportunity to be heard. Satisfied here by the noticed motion and Shah’s written opposition. See Windsor v. Boushie, 677 F. App’x 311, 311–12 (9th Cir. 2017).
- An adequate record for review — a listing of the cases and motions supporting the conclusion. The court cataloged twenty-nine proceedings.
- Substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment. Applying the Second Circuit factors adopted in Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058, the court found Shah’s filings both numerous and patently without merit under Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2014).
- Narrow tailoring “to closely fit the specific vice encountered.”
Three findings will be particularly useful to defendants confronting serial CIPA plaintiffs:
Manufactured injury. The court observed that Shah was well-acquainted with the industry practices he alleged violated his privacy, and had the means and knowledge to verify whether a website transmitted his search queries to third parties. Citing Molski’s “hot stove” reasoning, the court held that repeated filings asserting the same avoidable injury are suspect.
A settlement-extraction pattern. The court found that Shah’s record of (a) seeking out CIPA violations and submitting enough search queries to establish the amount in controversy, (b) voluntarily dismissing cases once defendants moved to dismiss, and (c) never trying a single CIPA claim on the merits “strongly indicates” a purpose to harass defendants into coercive settlements rather than seek redress in good faith.
Voluntary dismissals do not launder vexatiousness. Quoting Tokerud v. Capitolbank Sacramento, 38 Cal. App. 4th 775, 779 (1995), the court reaffirmed 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.
The court also held that Shah’s pro se status, while a mitigating factor under De Long, is not a bar to a pre-filing order and could not outweigh his extensive record of harassment.
The Relief: What the Court Granted — and Denied
Granted: A pre-filing order requiring Shah to obtain leave of court before filing any new case in the Central District of California alleging CIPA or related digital-privacy claims. The court found this scope consistent with orders upheld in Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061, 1064–65, because it is limited to “only the type of claims [plaintiff] had been filing vexatiously” and does not restrict unrelated filings.
Denied: Crain’s request for a security-of-costs bond in the pending action — though the court expressly noted that judges presiding over future actions covered by the pre-filing order retain discretion to impose that requirement.
Practical Takeaways for Businesses Facing CIPA Wiretapping Claims
- Investigate the plaintiff, not just the claim. A PACER and state-court docket search revealing a pattern of template complaints, rapid voluntary dismissals, and copy-paste pleadings borrowed from class actions is powerful evidence under the Molski framework.
- A vexatious-litigant motion is a viable alternative to serial settlement. Paying nuisance value invites the next complaint. This order shows courts will act when presented with an adequate record.
- Build the record deliberately. The De Long requirements are exacting: compile a complete case catalog with filing dates, claims, and dispositions, and propose a narrowly tailored order limited to the claim type at issue. Overbroad requests — such as barring “any suit” — cannot stand.
- Voluntary dismissals cut against the plaintiff. Defendants should document instances in which the plaintiff dismissed upon the filing of a motion to dismiss or demurrer; courts treat this pattern as indicative of bad faith.
Shah v. Crain Communications adds to a growing body of authority arming website operators against serial CIPA litigation. For companies weighing whether to settle or fight a session-replay or wiretapping demand, the decision demonstrates that a well-documented vexatious-litigant motion can end the cycle — not just the case.
The court also addressed, and declined to treat favorably, Shah’s pro se status, reaffirming the well-settled rule that “pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986).
Companies receiving demand letters or complaints asserting CIPA § 631(a) claims based on website analytics should carefully evaluate the nature of the information allegedly disclosed, the plaintiff’s ability to plead concrete injury, and the sufficiency of jurisdictional allegations.
