Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-canb-3_03-ap-03549/USCOURTS-canb-3_03-ap-03549-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alexis Mager Lakusta
Plaintiff
Mark H. Evans
Defendant
Sharon La Fountain
Defendant
Alvin C. Silbernagel
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

1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA, 

Debtor.

 

ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MARK H. EVANS, SHARON LA FOUNTAIN,

and ALVIN C. SILVERNAGEL,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 02-31521 STC

Chapter 7

Adv. Proc. No. 03-3549 TC

Date: August 11, 2006

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Ctrm: Hon. Thomas E. Carlson

 235 Pine Street

 San Francisco, CA 

MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO DECLARE 

ALEXIS LAKUSTA A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

At the above date and time, the court held a hearing on the

Motion of Mark Evans to Declare Alexis Lakusta A Vexatious

Signed and Filed: September 08, 2006

________________________________________

THOMAS E. CARLSON

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

________________________________________

Entered on Docket 

September 08, 2006

GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK 

U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 03-03549 Doc# 82 Filed: 09/08/06 Entered: 09/08/06 13:46:28 Page 1 of 8 
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. This memorandum constitutes the court’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law regarding the Motion.

FACTS

Alexis M. Lakusta (“Lakusta”) filed chapter 11 on June 4,

2002. The case was converted to chapter 7 on December 19, 2002. 

Lakusta sued Mark Evans (“Evans”) in bankruptcy and state court in

an effort to recover real property that Lakusta had transferred to

Evans prepetition. As described in more detail below, Lakusta lost

that litigation, and has been unable to accept this loss.

The First Action

Lakusta filed AP No. 02-3125 against Evans in this court on

June 10, 2002 (the “First Action”). The complaint includes the

following allegations. Lakusta owned three real properties located

on Old La Honda Road in Woodside, California. On March 26, 2002,

Lakusta entered into a general partnership with Evans to develop

548 Old La Honda Road and 579 Old La Honda. Evans was to act as

the general contractor. By April 22, 2002, Evans convinced Lakusta

to convey his entire interest in 548 Old La Honda, and a “full

interest” in Lakusta’s home at 633 Old La Honda. Evans caused the

grant deeds to be recorded, after which he “forcibly removed”

Lakusta from the property at 633 Old La Honda and took Lakusta’s

valuable personal property from the premises. The transactions

alleged in the First Action are hereinafter collectively referred

to as the “2002 Transactions”.

Shortly after Evans filed a timely answer in the First Action,

the parties settled the action via a signed settlement agreement

(the “Settlement Agreement”). This court signed an order approving

Case: 03-03549 Doc# 82 Filed: 09/08/06 Entered: 09/08/06 13:46:28 Page 2 of 8 
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

the settlement on August 20, 2002 (the “Settlement Order”). Under

the express terms of the Settlement Agreement, Lakusta and Evans

released all claims they had against each other, including a

release of all claims under California Civil Code section 1542. 

Two and one-half months after entry of the Settlement Order,

Evans filed a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement, and

Lakusta countered with a motion to vacate the Settlement Order. 

Prior to a determination on these cross motions, the First Action

was dismissed via a stipulation filed on June 18, 2003. 

The Second Action

On August 5, 2003, Lakusta filed an action against Evans in

San Mateo Superior Court (No. CIV 433241) seeking to void the March

2002 transfer to Evans of 633 Old La Honda (the “Second Action”). 

Lakusta filed the Second Action while his chapter 7 case was open,

despite the fact that the chapter 7 trustee had not abandoned to

Lakusta any litigation claims, and notwithstanding the release of

claims against Evans. In the Second Action, Lakusta alleged that

the contract transferring 633 Old La Honda did not comply with

California Civil Code section 1695. The complaint also named as

defendants Sharon La Fountain, a California notary public, and

Alvin C. Silbernagel, a licensed California real estate broker.

Evans filed a timely notice of removal of the action, which was

assigned Adv. Proc. No. 03-3549. 

The Second Action proceeded to trial, and this court entered

judgment in favor of Evans on June 7, 2005 (the “Judgment”). The

Judgment provided that the Settlement Agreement was fully

Case: 03-03549 Doc# 82 Filed: 09/08/06 Entered: 09/08/06 13:46:28 Page 3 of 8 
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 4

enforceable, and that the Second Action was barred as a result of

the release provisions in that Agreement.

Lakusta did not appeal the Judgment. On June 21, 2005,

Lakusta pro se filed a Rule 60(b) motion for amendment of the

Judgment, which the court denied on the basis that the motion

identified no legally cognizable grounds for relief. The motion,

exhibits, and related memorandum of points and authorities totaled

34 pages.

On June 8, 2006, almost one year after denial of the first

Rule 60(b) motion, Lakusta pro se filed a second Rule 60(b) motion. 

This second motion, exhibits, and related memorandum of points and

authorities totaled 96 pages. The court also denied the second

motion on the ground that it stated no basis for relief from

judgment cognizable under Rule 60(b). 

The Third Action

On April 15, 2006, Lakusta filed an emergency motion for

relief from stay to file a new action against Evans before the

statute of limitations ran. This court, which was out of town,

granted the motion in order to preserve the statute of limitations

while the court decided whether the action should proceed. 

Pursuant to the stay-relief order, on April 21, 2006, Lakusta filed

an action in San Mateo Superior Court against Evans, Evans’ company

(Old La Honda Properties), and Evans’ former counsel in the Second

Action, asserting a breach-of-contract claim regarding the 2002

Transactions (the “Third Action”). Also on April 21, 2006, Lakusta

filed a motion to compel the chapter 7 trustee to abandon the

estate’s interest in all claims against Evans, his agents and

Case: 03-03549 Doc# 82 Filed: 09/08/06 Entered: 09/08/06 13:46:28 Page 4 of 8 
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

employees, including but not limited to all of the claims alleged

in the First Action and in the Second Action. Lakusta’s counsel

withdrew prior to the scheduled hearing on the motion to abandon,

and substituted Lakusta in pro per. 

The court denied the motion for abandonment, finding that the

Trustee remained the real plaintiff in any new action, that the

Third Action also arose out of the 2002 Transactions, and that

Lakusta therefore improperly was seeking to relitigate the issues

resolved via the Judgment. The court also vacated the limited

stay-relief order and ordered the Trustee as plaintiff real-partyin-interest to dismiss the Third Action. 

On May 22, 2006, Lakusta filed a Notice of Appeal of the order

denying the motion for abandonment. That appeal apparently still

is pending.

Since the 2002 settlement between Lakusta and Evans, Evans has

incurred more than $200,000 in attorney fees to defend against

Lakusta’s lawsuits and motions regarding the 2002 Transactions. 

Lakusta filed no written opposition to Evans’ present Motion

to Declare Lakusta A Vexatious Litigant, but rather appeared at the

hearing and stated on the record at the hearing that he had a

lengthy new Rule 60(b) motion that he wished to have adjudicated.

LAW

A bankruptcy court has authority to protect and enforce its

judgments. 11 U.S.C. § 105(a); Walker v. Stanley, 231 B.R. 343

(N.D. Cal. 1999) (“There is strong precedent establishing the

inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of

Case: 03-03549 Doc# 82 Filed: 09/08/06 Entered: 09/08/06 13:46:28 Page 5 of 8 
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

abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under

the circumstances.”) (citations omitted).

The court should weigh the following factors in determining

whether or not to restrict a litigant’s future access to the court:

(1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in

particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or

duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in

pursuing the 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 courts and other parties. . . . 

The final and ultimate factor is ‘whether a litigant who

has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to

continue to abuse the judicial process. . . .’

Walker, 231 B.R. at 350-51 (quoted case omitted). 

Lakusta had a full and fair opportunity to litigate all claims

arising out of the 2002 Transactions. Judgment was entered against

him more than one year ago. The Judgment is final because Lakusta

did not appeal it. Lakusta has had two additional chances to

obtain amendment of the Judgment, but has been unable to identify a

proper basis for doing so, causing needless expense to Evans. 

Lakusta is able to impose expense on Evans, who is represented by

counsel, without imposing expense on himself, because Lakusta

represents himself. Absent an injunction, Lakusta is likely to

continue trying to relitigate his alleged entitlement to one or

more of the La Honda properties, as evidenced by his new Rule 60(b)

motion, the state-court complaint filed in April, and his appeal of

the order denying the motion to compel abandonment of the

litigation claims. There does not appear to be any other sanction

Case: 03-03549 Doc# 82 Filed: 09/08/06 Entered: 09/08/06 13:46:28 Page 6 of 8 
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

that would be adequate to protect Evans regarding the 2002

Transactions.

Accordingly, the court will enter a separate order providing

that, absent prior permission from this court, Lakusta is

permanently enjoined from filing any action in any court against

Mark Evans, Sharon La Fountain, Alvin C. Silbernagel, Old La Honda

Properties, or their agents or employees, regarding the 2002

Transactions, the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Order, or

the Judgment.

**END OF MEMORANDUM**

Case: 03-03549 Doc# 82 Filed: 09/08/06 Entered: 09/08/06 13:46:28 Page 7 of 8 
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

8

Court Service List

Alexis Mager Lakusta 

1259 El Camino Real, Suite 245

Menlo Park, CA 94025-4208

Catherine Schlomann Robertson, Esq.

225 West Santa Clara Street

Suite 1500

San Jose, CA 95113-1700

Aron M. Oliner, Esq.

Law Offices of Duane Morris

1 Market Spear Tower #2000

San Francisco, CA 94105-1411

Case: 03-03549 Doc# 82 Filed: 09/08/06 Entered: 09/08/06 13:46:28 Page 8 of 8