Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02722/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02722-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY DEMARTINI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL DEMARTINI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2722 JAM CKD PS

ORDER

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel counter-claimants to post security 

for costs by plaintiffs.1 The matter was submitted on the papers. Upon review of the documents 

in support and opposition, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

By their motion, plaintiffs request that defendants be declared vexatious litigants and be 

required to furnish security in the amount of $700,000. Litigants who abuse the judicial process 

by repeatedly filing “unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers,” or engaging “in other 

tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay” are vexatious litigants. 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391 (adopted in the Eastern District of California under L.R. 151(b)). In 

order to impose a limiting order on a vexatious litigant, four conditions must be met: (1) the 

 

1

Plaintiffs also move to strike exhibits submitted by defendants in support of the opposition to 

the pending motion. Exhibits A, C, F and H are properly subject to judicial notice; the motion to 

strike is denied as to those exhibits.

Case 2:14-cv-02722-DJC-CKD Document 58 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

litigant must have adequate notice to oppose the order; (2) an adequate record must be provided, 

listing the pleadings that led to the court’s decision that a vexatious litigant order was necessary; 

(3) the court must make substantive findings that the filings were frivolous or harassing; and (4) 

the order must be narrowly tailored. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 

1990); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047,1057-58 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Plaintiffs contend that defendants have been declared vexatious litigants in state court and 

should be declared vexatious litigants in federal court as well. Having considered the basis of the 

state court’s determination and upon review of the pleadings in the federal action, the court 

declines to find defendants vexatious at this time.2 Moreover, a review of the docket in the 

instant matter undermines plaintiffs’ assertion that defendants should be required to post security. 

This action was removed from state court to the District of Nevada on September 16, 2014. ECF 

No. 1. Defendants filed an answer and counterclaim on September 25, 2014. ECF No. 4. 

Plaintiffs filed an answer to the counterclaim on October 20, 2014. ECF No. 16. The action was 

thereafter transferred to this court on November 20, 2014. ECF No. 27. Under the law governing 

the action at the time plaintiffs filed their answer to the counterclaims, a demand for undertaking 

had to be made within the time limited for answering the complaint. See Simulnet East 

Associates v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574-575 (9th Cir. 1994) (Nevada 

District Court adopted pertinent Nevada statute which sets outer time limit for making demand 

for undertaking). Having failed to make a timely demand while this action was venued in the 

District of Nevada, it would transgress the canons of fair forensics to allow plaintiffs, five months 

/////

 

2

 The court notes that the briefing on the pending motion alone comprised over 700 pages, most 

of which was filed by plaintiffs. The parties are cautioned that future motions and oppositions 

filed by the parties may be subject to strict page limits. The court in the Marin County action 

stated the following: “The court is appalled at the amount of paper generated by crosscomplainants. . . . If counsel and their respective clients are intent upon punishing their 

counterparts or siblings, that’s one thing. However, the court has no wish to expend its scant 

hours, staff hours, and resources by participating in this process. If it continues, the court will 

give strong consideration to referring the matters to a discovery referee for consideration of the 

parties’ competing demands and responses.” ECF No. 46-6 at p. 10. Given the prior litigation 

tactics of each of the parties to this action, the parties are warned that this court will not tolerate 

abuse of the judicial process by burying the opposing side in a mountain of paper. 

Case 2:14-cv-02722-DJC-CKD Document 58 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 3
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

after the action was transferred, to essentially obtain a judgment as a matter of law on defendants’ 

counterclaims by now requiring the posting of security in the amount of $700,000.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel counter-claimants to post security for costs by plaintiffs 

(ECF No. 40) is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 53) is denied with respect to those matters which 

are properly subject to judicial notice.

3. This matter is set for status conference on September 2, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in 

courtroom no. 24. Status reports setting forth the matters described in the civil new case 

documents issued November 21, 2014 (ECF No. 30) shall be filed no later than August 19, 2015.

Dated: June 18, 2015

4 demartini2722.oah.sec

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02722-DJC-CKD Document 58 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 3