Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00690/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00690-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

– 1 – 16-cv-0690 DMS (BLM)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK J. HINRICHSEN, ANNA 

HINRICHSEN, HOLLY COX,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-0690 DMS (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR AN ORDER DECLARING 

COUNTER DEFENDANTS 

VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND 

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1927

v.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE 

CORPORATION; DEUTSCHE 

BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

THE HOLDERS OF NEW 

CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN 

TRUST, SERIES 2005-A, ASSET 

BACKED PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES; DOES 1-10, 

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

Pending before the Court is Counterclaimants Deutsche Bank National Trust 

Company and Bank of America, N.A.’s motion for an order declaring Counter 

Defendants Rick J. Hinrichsen, Anna Hinrichsen, Holly Cox, Steven H. Lucore, and 

Judy Lucore vexatious litigants and for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 

Case 3:16-cv-00690-DMS-BLM Document 245 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 16-cv-0690 DMS (BLM)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Counter Defendants filed an opposition to the motion, and Counterclaimants filed a 

reply. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. 

Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), district courts have “the 

inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants.” Molski v. 

Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Weissman v. 

Quail Lodge Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999)). “However, pre-filing orders 

are an extreme remedy that should rarely be used.” Id. (citing De Long v. Hennessey, 

912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)). As such, “[c]ourts should not enter pre-filing 

orders with undue haste because such sanctions can tread on a litigant’s due process 

right of access to the courts.” Id. (citations omitted). Before declaring a plaintiff a 

vexatious litigant, courts must: “(1) give litigants notice and ‘an opportunity to 

oppose the order before it [is] entered’; (2) compile an adequate record for appellate 

review, including ‘a listing of all the cases and motions that led the district court to 

conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed’; (3) make substantive findings 

of frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as ‘to closely fit 

the specific vice encountered.’” Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 

1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147–48). “The first and 

second of these requirements are procedural, while the ‘latter two factors ... are 

substantive considerations ... [that] help the district court define who is, in fact, a 

“vexatious litigant” and construct a remedy that will stop the litigant’s abusive 

behavior while not unduly infringing the litigant’s right to access the courts.’” Id. 

(quoting Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058).

Initially, to the extent Counterclaimants seek to declare the Lucores vexatious 

litigants, the Court denies the motion as moot because the Lucores have been 

dismissed from the present action.

As to the remaining Counter Defendants, Cox and the Hinrichsens, the Court 

proceeds directly to the third factor because it is dispositive. “[B]efore a district 

Case 3:16-cv-00690-DMS-BLM Document 245 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 16-cv-0690 DMS (BLM)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

court issues a pre-filing injunction ... it is incumbent on the court to make substantive 

findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions.” De Long, 

912 F.2d at 1148 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To determine 

whether a litigant’s actions are frivolous, “district courts must look at both the 

number and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant’s 

claims.” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1064 (citations and internal quotation 

marks omitted). “An injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. 

The plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without 

merit.” Molski, 500 F.3d 1059. As an alternative to frivolousness, “the district court 

may make [a] finding that the litigant’s filings ‘show a pattern of harassment.’” 

Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1064 (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148). The 

Ninth Circuit has cautioned that courts “must be careful not to conclude that 

particular types of actions filed repetitiously are harassing, and must [i]nstead ... 

discern whether the filing of several similar types of actions constitutes an intent to 

harass the defendant or the court.” Id. (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Counterclaimants contend Counter Defendants have filed countless frivolous 

motions in the present action for the sole purpose of harassment. In support, 

Counterclaimants identify five motions filed by Cox and the Hinrichsens. (See

Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. at 15.) Counter Defendants’ motions practice, 

however, is not sufficiently frivolous or harassing at this time to warrant a pre-filing 

order. The number of motions filed by Counter Defendants is not inordinate. And 

while the Court understands Counterclaimants’ concern that Counter Defendants 

may have filed motions that lacked merit or were unnecessary to prosecute their case, 

it is notable that Counter Defendants are proceeding pro se. Some leeway is 

therefore warranted. See Ringgold–Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1063 (whether litigant is 

represented by counsel is helpful in determining vexatious litigant status). 

Case 3:16-cv-00690-DMS-BLM Document 245 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 16-cv-0690 DMS (BLM)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Moreover, Counter Defendants have filed only one lawsuit against 

Counterclaimants. A single lawsuit is insufficient to support a pre-filing order based 

on the extreme nature of such a remedy. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1064–

65 (“two cases is far fewer than what other courts have found ‘inordinate.’”). Cases 

in which courts have issued pre-filing orders have involved much more serious 

examples of abuse of the legal system. See, e.g., Favor v. Harper, No. CV 17-0165-

JGB (JEM), 2017 WL 132830, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017) (“[plaintiff] has filed 

at least 50 actions in this district since 2014, and he continues to file new habeas 

petitions and civil rights complaints on a regular basis.”); Molski, 500 F.3d at1050 

(roughly 400 similar cases); Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 

705 F.2d 1515, 1523, 1526 (9th Cir. 1983) (35 actions filed in 30 jurisdictions); 

Calhoun v. San Diego Cty., No. 12CV2596 AJB JMA, 2012 WL 5878666, at *3 

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) (26 similar complaints); Ryan v. Morgan, No. 11CV0685 

JAH (CAB), 2012 WL 12874927, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2012) (15 similar cases). 

Accordingly, Counterclaimant’s motion to declare Counter Defendants vexatious 

litigants is denied. The request for attorneys’ fees is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00690-DMS-BLM Document 245 Filed 12/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4