Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01187/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01187-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

LORENE FOREMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1187-MMA(RBB)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DECLARE PLAINTIFFS

VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND TO

FURNISH SECURITY

[Doc. No. 23]

vs.

ROBERT FREEDMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

On May 31, 2011, Plaintiffs Lorene and Earnest Foreman (“Plaintiffs”) brought this action

against Defendants 3960 Arizona Street, Julie Dong, First Light Properties, Robert Freedman, and

Taylor Williams (collectively “Defendants”) for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and

Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as personal injury and breach of warranty claims. [Doc.

No. 1.] Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiffs vexatious litigants,

and to require Plaintiffs to furnish security before proceeding with this action. [Doc. No. 23.] 

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro per, oppose the motion. [Doc. No. 33.] On August 21, 2012, the Court

took the matter under submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7.1(d)(1). [Doc. No. 34.] For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendants’

motion. 

/ / /

- 1 - 11cv1187

Case 3:11-cv-01187-MMA-RBB Document 35 Filed 10/15/12 Page 1 of 5
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

I. VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS

A. Legal Standard for Issuing Pre-filing Orders 

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides District Courts with the inherent power

to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d

1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). However, such orders are an extreme remedy that should rarely be

used. Id. (citing De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)). “A court should

enter a pre-filing order constraining a litigant’s scope of actions in future cases only after a

cautious review of the pertinent circumstances.” Id. at 1057.

The Ninth Circuit has held that before a plaintiff can be enjoined as a vexatious litigant, a

court must find that: (1) the plaintiff had notice of the motion and an opportunity to be heard; (2)

there was an adequate record for review showing that the litigant’s activities were numerous and

abusive; (3) the court has made substantive findings as to the frivolousness or harassing nature of

the litigant’s actions; and (4) the order has an appropriate breadth and is narrowly tailored to fit the

specific vice encountered. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (citing De Long, 912 F.2d at 1146). A court

may also consider: (1) the litigant’s history of litigation and whether it entailed vexatious,

harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing litigation; (3) whether the

litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other

parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether

other sanctions would be adequate to protect the other parties. Id. at 1058. 

B. Analysis 

Defendants’ motion deals primarily with the allegedly frivolous nature of Plaintiffs’

current action. (See generally Defs.’ Mot.) Although Defendants provide a list of cases that

Plaintiffs have filed since 1991, Defendants’ motion entirely fails to address the nature of these

suits. As Ninth Circuit case law dictates, the Court must identify an adequate record for review

showing that Plaintiffs’ activities were numerous and abusive. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (citing De

Long, 912 F.2d at 1146). Further, the Court must determine that Plaintiffs’ prior actions are

“frivolous” and “harassing in nature.” Id. Because Defendants fail to provide any detail

whatsoever as to the nature of Plaintiffs’ prior litigations, the Court is unable to make such

- 2 - 11cv1187

Case 3:11-cv-01187-MMA-RBB Document 35 Filed 10/15/12 Page 2 of 5
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

findings. As an “injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness,” the Court

declines to declare Plaintiffs vexatious litigants. Id. (quoting Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467,

470 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

II. REQUEST TO FURNISH SECURITY

Defendants also request that Plaintiffs be required to post $80,000 as security for their

costs in litigating this action. [Defs.’ Mot. 8.] “While no federal statute authorizes security for

costs, the District Courts may make their own rules not inconsistent with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.” Russell v. Cunningham, 233 F.2d 806, 811 (9th Cir. 1956) (citing Fed. R. Civ.

P. 83). The Southern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 65.1.2(a) permits the Court at any

time, on its own motion or that of a party, to order a party to furnish security for costs which may

be awarded against such party in an amount and on such terms as are appropriate. S.D. Cal. Civ.

L.R. 65.1.2(a). In establishing the requirements for a costs bond, the Court may look to the law of

the forum state. Simulnet East Associates v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574 (9th

Cir. 1994).

In California, requiring a plaintiff who has been declared a vexatious litigation to post a

security bond is appropriate to protect defendants from costs and attorney’s fees they might incur. 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 391 requires a party to furnish security on a showing

that (1) the party is a vexatious litigant and (2) there is no reasonable probability that she will

prevail in the instant litigation. California Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b) defines a

vexatious litigant as a person who does any of the following: 

(1) In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced,

prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations

other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally

determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to

remain pending at least two years without having been brought to

trial or hearing.

(2) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person,

repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona,

either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant

or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii)

the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or

law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the

same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally

determined.

- 3 - 11cv1187

Case 3:11-cv-01187-MMA-RBB Document 35 Filed 10/15/12 Page 3 of 5
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

(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files

unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts

unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous

or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

(4) Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any

state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based

upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or

occurrence.

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 391(b).

Although unclear, it appears that Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should be declared

vexatious litigants under subsection (b)(1), as Defendants attached the case numbers of actions

Plaintiffs filed between December 19, 1991 and May 31, 2012. [See Defs.’ Mot. 3, Ex. A.] To

declare Plaintiffs vexatious litigants under section 391(b)(1), the Court must be able to discern

from the record whether the previous cases were dismissed, whether the Plaintiffs were

represented by counsel, whether the cases had adverse outcomes to Plaintiffs, or whether they

were unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to

trial or hearing. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 391(b)(1). Defendants make no showing as to these factors. 

Rather, Defendants simply state that Plaintiffs, jointly and separately, have filed seventeen actions

over a twenty-year period, and attach the related case numbers. [Defs.’ Mot. 3, Ex. A.] This is

insufficient.

Defendants do not invoke subsections (b)(2) or (b)(4) as possible grounds for finding

Plaintiffs vexatious litigants. This leaves subsection (b)(3), which Defendants do raise. [See

Defs.’ Mot. 2-3.] It is unclear from Defendants’s motion whether they argue that Plaintiffs have

“repeatedly file[d] unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers,” or “engage[d] in other

tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” Cal. Code Civ. P. §

391(b)(3). “While [California courts have not identified] a bright-line rule as to what constitutes

‘repeatedly,’ most [California] cases affirming the vexatious litigant designation involve situations

where litigants have filed dozens of motions either during the pendency of an action or relating to

the same judgment.” Morton v. Wagner, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 818, 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). Here,

Defendants make no showing that Plaintiffs repeatedly filed motions, pleadings, or other papers in

this action. Certainly, the filing of the complaint itself does not qualify as “repeatedly.” In

- 4 - 11cv1187

Case 3:11-cv-01187-MMA-RBB Document 35 Filed 10/15/12 Page 4 of 5
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

addition, although Defendants discuss at length the allegedly frivolous nature of Plaintiffs’

complaint, Defendants do not argue that Plaintiffs engaged in “tactics that are frivolous or solely

intended to cause unnecessary delay.” Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 391(b)(3) (emphasis added). As such,

the Court declines to declare Plaintiffs vexatious litigants under section 391(b)(3).

Accordingly, any discussion regarding Plaintiffs’ probability of success in this case is

irrelevant, as this question is raised only after the Court determines that Plaintiffs are vexatious

litigants. See Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 391.1 (requiring a motion requiring plaintiff to furnish security

“be based upon the ground, and supported by a showing, that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant

and that there is not a reasonable probability that he will prevail in the litigation against the

moving defendant.”). 

 In sum, Defendants fail to show that Plaintiffs’ conduct rises to the level

of “vexatious litigants” as set forth by California Code of Civil Procedure section 391. Therefore,

the Court will not require that Plaintiffs post security before proceeding with this action. 

 III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to

declare Plaintiffs vexatious litigants and to furnish security. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 15, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

 

- 5 - 11cv1187

Case 3:11-cv-01187-MMA-RBB Document 35 Filed 10/15/12 Page 5 of 5