Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05803/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05803-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eva D. Al-Zaghari
Plaintiff
Vanessa Osuna
Defendant
Shirley V. Remmert
Plaintiff
Josh Stauffer
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHIRLEY V. REMMERT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOSH STAUFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05803-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Mateo County 

Deputy District Attorney Josh Stauffer and Deputy Public Guardian Vanessa Osuna. Dkt. No. 1. 

For the reasons set forth below, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by a 2011 

vexatious litigant order.

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff’s Litigation History 

Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court. Most recently, the Court dismissed the complaint in 

C No. 18-cv-2154 HSG, Remmert v. Karesh (“Remmert I”), on the grounds that the complaint’s 

allegations were legally untenable, frivolous, irrational, wholly incredible and based on fantastic 

and delusional scenarios, and violated the vexatious litigant order to which plaintiff was subject. 

See Order of Dismissal, C No. 18-cv-2154 HSG, Remmert v. Karesh, docketed at Dkt. No. 34

(Mar. 14, 2019) (“Remmert I Dismissal”). The Remmert I Dismissal detailed plaintiff’s extensive 

history with this Court and the allegations made in that and prior actions:

Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered greatly due to a conspiracy that started in 1970 and 

continues to this day. She alleges that family members, government officials, state court 

judges, state agency officials, medical personnel, and violent gangs have conspired to 

deprive, or have deprived, Plaintiff, her mother Julia C. Venoya, and her daughter Eva AlZaghari of real estate and other assets. Plaintiff alleges that the co-conspirators 

Case 4:19-cv-05803-HSG Document 17 Filed 11/13/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

orchestrated the following events in order to achieve their objective: caused Julia to suffer 

battery and in-home invasions, to be subjected to radioactive iodine treatment, to be 

kidnapped, to be falsely diagnosed with schizophrenia, and to contract cancer symptoms; 

the deaths of the family members who were in line to inherit from Patricia King, Julia’s 

sister; a home invasion in 1990 targeting Eva and resulting in Eva being gang-raped and 

having her eggs extracted; Eva’s marriage to Hisham Al-Zaghari; Hisham’s efforts to 

destabilize Plaintiff’s family at the direction of Israeli agents; Hisham causing Eva to 

develop diabetes; the theft of Eva’s child by social workers; Eva and Julia’s commitment 

to institutional care facilities; Plaintiff being convinced of misdemeanor counts related to 

her efforts to release Eva and Julia from institutional care; and restraining orders issued 

against Plaintiff that prevent her from contacting Eva. See Dkt. No. 1 at 5–22.

Plaintiff has filed numerous actions in the Northern District of California related to these 

alleged events. See, e.g., Al-Zaghari, et al. v. Breese, C No. 3:01-cv-01154-CRB; Venoya 

v. Remmert, C No. 4:06-cv-06709-CW; Venoya v. Remmert, et al., C No. 4:07-mc-80117-

CW; People of the State of California v. Remmert, C No. 4:07-mc-80155-CW; Al-Zaghari, 

et al. v. Bresee, C No. 3:01-cv-01154-CRB; Remmert v. Pfeiffer, C No. 3:07-cv-00824-

CRB; Remmert v. Pfeiffer, 3:07-cv-00825-CRB; Remmert v. Munks, et al., C No. 3:07-cv03825-CRB; Remmert v. Munks et al., C No. 3:07-cv-03826-CRB; Remmert, et al. v. 

Sanchez, et al., 3:07-cv-03827-CRB; Remmert v. Sanchez, et al., 3:07-cv-03828-CRB; 

Remmert v. Lee, et al., No. 3:17-cv-03856-CRB. In 2001, Chief Judge Marilyn Hall Patel 

deemed Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and barred Plaintiff from filing any complaints, 

pleadings, or other papers without a prefiling order of the court regarding inter alia Eva’s 

conservatorship, the restraining order barring Plaintiff from contacting Eva, custody of 

Eva’s son (Plaintiff’s minor grandson), or the state court proceedings related to these 

issues. See Al-Zaghari, et al. v. Al-Zaghari, et al., Case No. C 01-2870 MHP, Dkt. No. 8 

(Order, Aug. 15, 2001); Remmert v. San Mateo Cty. Sup. Ct., et al., Case No. C 07-80085 

WHA, Dkt. No. 1 (Order, Apr. 4, 2007); Remmert v. United States, 670 Fed Appx. 584 

(9th Cir. 2016) (affirming district court order denying Plaintiff leave to file complaint 

pursuant to vexatious litigant order). In 2013, the United States Supreme Court found that 

Plaintiff had repeatedly abused the Supreme Court’s process, and directed future petitions 

filed by Plaintiff in noncriminal matters not be accepted unless the filing was in the 

appropriate format and accompanied by the requisite filing fee. Remmert v. San Mateo 

Cty. Public Guardian, 134 S. Ct. 190 (2013).

Remmert I Dismissal at 3-4 (citing to docket entries in Remmert I). 

II. Complaint 

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and her daughter Eva D. Al-Zaghari, whom 

Remmert identifies as a nominal plaintiff. The complaint names San Mateo County Deputy 

District Attorney Josh Stauffer and Deputy Public Guardian Vanessa Osuna as defendants. She 

names as interested parties, Judge George A. Miriam, Judge Quentin Kopp, and President Donald 

Trump. 

The complaint alleges that there is an ongoing conspiracy between private individuals, 

state court judges, and state agency personnel to enslave plaintiff and her daughter Eva. The 

conspiracy has been furthered by the issuance of restraining orders preventing plaintiff from 

Case 4:19-cv-05803-HSG Document 17 Filed 11/13/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

contacting Eva and the grant of a conservatorship of Eva.1 

The complaint sets forth five causes of action. First, plaintiff alleges that Judges Kopp and 

Miriam, Deputy District Attorney Stauffer, and Deputy Public Guardian Osuna contributed to the 

enslavement of plaintiff and Eva, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, by acting as “agents 

for the cause” to seize plaintiff and Eva’s property for wrongful control and to silence their 

complaints. Second, plaintiff alleges that, in 2004 through 2008, Judge Kopp tried to extort her 

for a marriage with his friend psychiatrist Harry Verby during the hearings for Case No. CIV 

438208 in order to keep plaintiff, Eva, and Case No. CIV 438208 hostage to the judges’ plan. 

Third, plaintiff alleges that on April 14, 2005, March 21, 2016, and April 11, 2016, Judge Miriam 

held hearings without providing notice to either plaintiff or Eva, which deprived plaintiff of a 

probate hearing and violated probate rules, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Fourth, 

plaintiff alleges that Deputy District Attorney Stauffer committed fraud on the court and 

obstructed justice when he withheld exonerating documents in Case No. SM340531A, thereby 

defaming plaintiff’s character and Eva’s capacity, and causing years of turmoil for plaintiff’s 

family. Fifth, plaintiff alleges that Deputy Public Guardian Osuna committed fraud when she 

presented, without conducting an investigation, written and verbal testimony supporting her claim 

that plaintiff abused Eva and when Osuna stated that plaintiff wanted to help Eva escape again. 

Dkt. No. 1 at 12-13. 

As relief in this action, Plaintiff seeks the voiding of the reports certifying Eva’s 

conservatorship which she claims defamed her and Eva; the voiding of the probate court orders 

that authorized the conservatorship and issued the restraining orders; Eva’s release, and monetary 

damages. Dkt. No. 1 at 14. 

III. Barred by Vexatious Litigation Order

This complaint is barred by Judge Patel’s 2011 vexatious litigant order. As explained 

supra, plaintiff is barred from filing any complaints, pleadings, or other papers without a prefiling 

order of the court regarding inter alia Eva’s conservatorship, the restraining order barring plaintiff 

 

1 Plaintiff alleges that additional acts were taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. See generally

Dkt. No. 1 at 3-8. The Court does not detail these allegations here.

Case 4:19-cv-05803-HSG Document 17 Filed 11/13/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

from contacting Eva, or the state court proceedings related to these issues. See Al-Zaghari, et al. 

v. Al-Zaghari, et al., Case No. C 01-2870 MHP, Dkt. No. 8 (Order, Aug. 15, 2001); Remmert v. 

San Mateo Cty. Sup. Ct., et al., Case No. C 07-80085 WHA, Dkt. No. 1 (Order, Apr. 4, 2007); 

Remmert v. United States, 670 Fed Appx. 584 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming district court order 

denying plaintiff leave to file complaint pursuant to vexatious litigant order). Because the instant 

action concerns, and seeks relief related to, Eva’s conservatorship, the restraining orders against 

plaintiff, and the related court proceedings, the instant action is barred by the 2011 vexatious 

litigant order. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice as barred by 

the vexatious litigant order. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to 

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/13/2019

Case 4:19-cv-05803-HSG Document 17 Filed 11/13/19 Page 4 of 4