### NOT FOR PU BLICA TION

U NIT E D ST A T E S BA NK RU PT CYA PPE L L A T E PA N E L

OF T HE NINT H CIRCU IT In re: SHMU EL ERDE, Deb to r. SHMU EL ERDE, A p pellant,

v. THEO DO R

N IC K O LA S BO DN A R; MA RYLO U ISABO DN A R; THE BO DN A R

FA MILYTRU ST, A p pellees. BA P N o s . C C -19-1022-GTaS C C -19-1139-GTaS (Related) Bk. N o . 2:18-b k-20200-VZ A dv. N o . 2:18-ap-01295-VZ

M E M ORA ND U M *

A rgued and Sub m itted o n N o vemb er 21, 2019

at Pasadena, C alifo rnia Filed – Dec emb er 3, 2019 A ppeal fro m the U nited States Bankruptcy C o urt

# F IL ED
DEC 3 2019 SUSAN M . SPRAUL, CLERK U. S

. BKCY

. APP. PANEL O F T HE NI NT H CI RCUI T

*Thi s di sposi ti on i s not appr opr i ate for publi cati on. Although i t may be ci ted for whatev er per suasiv e v alue i t may hav e, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, i t has no pr ecedenti al v alue. See 9th Ci r . BAP Rule 8024-1.fo r the C entral Distric t o f C alifo rnia

H o no rab le Vinc ent P. Z u rzo lo , Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding A ppearanc es: A p pellant Shm uel Erde argued prose. * *

Befo r e: GA N, TAY LO R , and SPRA K ER

, Bankruptcy Judges. INT ROD U CT I ON This appeal arises fro mthe latest chapter in Shm uel Erde’s dec adeslo ng pursuit o f c laim s against his fo rm er partner Theo do r Bo dnar, related to a failed real estate develo pm ent deal in 1984. In this Chapter 11 1 c ase, he appeals fro mthe b ankruptcy c o urt’s o rder (1) dism issing his adversary
c o m p laint against Mr. Bo dnar, Mary Bo dnar, and the Bo d nar Fam ily Trust (“Bo dnar Parties”); (2) determ ining Mr. Erde to b e a vexatio us litigant with respec t to the Bo dnar Parties; and (3) enjo ining him fro m c o m m enc ing o r c o ntinuing any adversary pro c eedings against the Bo dnar Parties witho u t perm issio n fro mthe c o u rt. He also appeals the b ankruptcy c o urt’s o rder denying him perm issio n to file a m o t io n to vac ate the o rder dism issing the

* *None of the named appellees acti v ely par ti ci pated i n thi s appeal.
1 Unless specifi ed other wi se, all chapterand secti on r efer ences ar e to the Bankr uptcy Code, 11 U.S
. C. §§ 101-1532, all “Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder a l Rules of Bankr uptcy Pr ocedur e. 21984 b ankruptc y c ase filed b y his partnership. 2

Mr. Erde’s c laim s against the Bo dnar Parties and his attempts to adm inister the partnership assets are b a rred b y c laimprec lusio n. The b ankruptc y c o urt was c o rrec t to dism iss the adversary pro c eeding and dec lare Mr. Erde a vexatio us litigant, and to deny himperm issio n to file the
m o tio n to vac ate. W e A FFIRM. FA CT U A L BA CK G ROU ND 3 A . Prepetition E v e nts 1. T he dev elopm ent deal In 1983, Mr. Erde fo r m ed a partnership with Theo do r Bo dnar to redevelo p an aging b uilding o wned b y Mr. Erde. Prio r to securing financ ing fo r the redevelo pm ent pro jec t, Mr. Erde and Mr. Bo dnar ob tained a sho rt-terminterim lo a n, secured b y a deeds o f trust o n the pro perty as well as Mr. Erde’s personal residenc e and his o ther investm ent pro perties. Befo r e Mr. Bo dnar c o uld arrange a lo ng-term lo an, the interimlo an b ec am e due and the lender initiated fo rec lo sure pro c eedings against the pro perties.

2 Although Mr . Er de di d not attach the or der denying per mi ssi on to fi l e the moti on to v acate to hi s noti ce of appeal, i t i s clearfr om hi s opening br i ef that he intended to appeal that or der, and we exer ci se our di scr eti on to r ev i ew i t. See Mahakian v. William Maxwell Invs., LLC, (In re Mahakian) , 529 B.R. 268 (9th Ci r. BAP 2015).

3 In thi s memor andum, we hav e bor r owed fr om the Panel’s detai led deci si on i n Erde v. Dye (In re Erde) , BAP No. CC-18-1321-FLS, 2019 WL 2399708 (9th Ci r . BAP June 9, 2019). We also exer ci se our di scr eti on to r ev i ew the bankr uptcy cour t’s docket and the av a i lable publi c r ecor d in Mr . Er de’s many cases. See Woods & Erickson, LLP v. Leonard (In re AVI, Inc.) , 389 B.R. 721, 725 n.2 (9th Ci r. BAP 2008). 3In March 1984, Mr. Bo dnar rec o rded a lis pendens against the

pro perty, whic h c lo uded the title and prevented Mr. Erde fro msecu ring alternative financ ing. Mr. Bo dnar then filed a chapter 11 b a nkruptc y petitio n o n b ehalf o f the partnership (the “1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase”). Mr. Erde was unab le to secure financ ing to pay o ff the interim lo an and as a result, he lo st everything. The b ankruptcy c o urt eventually dism issed the partnership’s b ankruptcy c ase. 2
. M r. E r de’slitig ation ag ains t the Bodnar Parties In A pril 2001, Mr. Erde filed suit in the C alifo rnia state c o urt against Mr. Bo dnar and o thers (the “2001 State C o urt A c tio n”). The superio r c o urt dism issed the c o m plaint with prejudic e, ruling that Mr. Erde’s c laim s were b arred b y the statute o f lim itatio ns. Mr. Erde appealed and the c o urt o f appeal affirm ed the dism issal in Septemb er 2002. In Feb ruary 2003, Mr. Erde filed a nearly identic al lawsuit in distric t
c o u rt against the sam e defendants (the “2003 Distric t C o urt A c tio n”). The distric t c o urt dism issed Mr. Erde’s c o m plaint with prejudic e, and Mr. Erde appealed. The N inth C irc uit affirm ed, ho lding that Mr. Erde was attem p ting to relitigate the sam e c laim s he b ro ught in a prio r ac tio n against the sam e defendants. In June 2006, Mr. Erde filed ano ther c o m plaint in state c o urt against the sam e defendants (the “2006 State C o urt A c tio n”). He essentially alleged the sam e c auses o f ac tio n as the prio r c ases. The superio r c o urt dism issed
4the c o m p laint with prejudic e, ho lding that the issues had b een litigated and

finally determ ined. Mr. Erde appealed, and the c o u rt o f appeal affirm ed the dec isio n in A p r il 2008. In Septemb er 2009, Mr. Erde attempted to resurrec t the 2006 State C o urt A c tio n b y arguing that he had b een suffering fro ma “severe
c o nditio n o f m ental derangem ent” fo r the prio r three dec ades and sho uld b e allo w ed to relitigate all issues. The superio rc o urt denied the m o tio n and granted the defendants’ m o tio n to dec lare Mr. Erde a vexatio us litigant. Mr. Erde appealed, and the c o urt o f appeal affirm ed. Two years later, Mr. Erde returned tothe superio r c o urt and filed a
m o tio n fo r a new trial, a m o tio n fo r dec larato ry relief, a m o t io n to strike the vexatio us litigant o rder, and a m o tio n to vo id the vexatio u s litigant o rder. The superio r c o urt denied all requested relief. 3. M r. E r de’s2009 bankruptcy c as e and further proc eeding s ag ains t the Bodnar Parties In 2009, Mr. Erde filed a personal chapter 11 petitio n (the “2009 Bankruptcy C ase”). He alsoinitiated sixteen adversary pro c eedings, two o f which were against the Bo dnar Parties (the “2009 A dversaries”). Mr. Erde so ught turno ver o f alleged partnership pro perty in the po ssessio n o f the Bo dnar Parties and dam ages against the Bo dnar Parties
c aused b y the filing o f the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C a se. The Bo dnar Parties filed m o tio ns to dism iss the two adversaries and argued that

5Mr. Erde’s c laim s had already b een dec ided against himm ultiple tim es in

state and federal c o urts. The b ankruptc y c o urt ruled that the c laim s asserted b y Mr. Erde
aro se in 1984 and b ec a use Mr. Erde had filed twointervening b ankruptcy c ases in 1985 and 1996, the claim s were unadm inistered assets o f his prio r b ankruptc y estate. The b ankruptcy c o urt dism issed the 2009 A dversaries with prejudic e. Mr. Erde filed a m o tio n fo r rec o nsideratio n, which the c o urt denied. 4. T he 2012 m otion to reopen the 1984 Partners hip Bankruptcy Cas e In O c t ob er 2012, Mr. Erde filed a m o tio n to reo pen the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase. The b ankruptcy c o u rt denied the m o t io n b ec ause the issues had b een repeatedly litigated in state and federal c o urt. Mr. Erde next filed a m o tio n to alter o r am end the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase, which the b ankruptc y c o urt also denied. O n appeal, the distric t c o urt affirm ed and denied Mr. Erde’s sub sequent m o tio n fo r rec o nsideratio n. Mr. Erde filed a request fo r leave to file a m o tio n fo rsanc t io ns against Mr. Bo dnar’s atto rneys which the distric t c o urt denied. Mr. Erde then filed
ano ther m o tio n to am end the final judgm ent and a request torefer the
m atter to the United States A tto rney fo r c rim inal investigatio n. The distric t
c o u rt denied Mr. Erde’s requested relief and declared hima vexatio us

6litigant. It required himto seek perm issio n b efo re filing any further

do c um ents related to his dispute with Mr. Bo dnar o ver the develo pm ent deal. 5. T he 2015 m otion to reopen the 2009 Bankruptcy Cas e In March 2015, Mr. Erde filed a m o tio n to reo p en his 2009 Bankruptcy C ase to am end the schedules and adm inister unlisted assets which
c o nsisted o f his purpo rted share o f the partnership’s assets. The c o u rt denied the m o tio n, denied Mr. Erde’s m o tio n fo r rec o nsideratio n, and denied Mr. Erde’s resub m itted m o tio n to reo pen the c a se. The distric t c o urt and the N inth C irc uit affirm ed. B. E rde’s2018 bankruptcy c as e and the pres ent adv ers ary proc eeding Mr. Erde initiated his fifth 4 b ankruptcy c ase in 2018 (the “2018 Bankruptcy C ase”) b y filing a c hapter 11 petitio n, pro se. He again filed an adversary pro c eeding against the Bo dnar Parties alleging that Mr. Bo dnar c o nc ealed assets in the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase. Mr. Erde sought a dec laratio n that he was entitled to 50%
o f the partnership’s assets, and that the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase was vo id ab initio
. 1. T he m otion for default judgm ent Mr. Erde filed a m o tio n fo r default judgm ent o n his c o m plaint, which the c o urt denied. In additio n to defec tive servic e, the b ankruptcy c o urt held

4 Mr
. Er de also ini ti ated a shor t-li v ed chapter 13 bankr uptcy in 2014. 7that the c laim s in the c o m plaint were b arred b y issue and c laimprec lusio n

b ec ause they were identic al to the c laim s alleged in the 2009 A dversaries. The c o u rt also held that the c laim s and allegatio ns were identic al to, and
aro se o ut o f, the sam e alleged transac tio ns as set fo rth in prio r c ivil suits filed b y Mr. Erde against the Bo dnar Parties in the 2001 State C o u rt A c tio n, the 2003 Distric t C o urt A c tio n, and the 2006 State C o urt A c tio n. The c o urt
no ted that Mr. Erde m ade the sam e c laim s in his attem p ts to reo pen the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C a se and in his m o tio n to reo pen the 2009 Bankruptcy C ase. 2. T he order to s h ow c aus e The b ankruptc y c o urt then issued an o r der to sho wc ause why the adversary pro c eeding sho uld no t b e dism issed with prejudic e and why Mr. Erde sho uld no t b e dec lared a vexatio us litigant. The c o urt attached as exhib its the C alifo rnia c o urt o f appeals dec isio n affirm ing the superio r c o u rt’s dec isio n in the 2006 State C o urt A c tio n, and the distric tc o urt ruling affirm ing the b ankruptc y c o urt’s o rder denying Mr. Erde’s m o tio n to
reo pen the 2009 Bankruptcy C ase. Each o f these rulings detailed Mr. Erde’s prio r litigatio n effo rts against the Bo dnar Parties. Mr. Erde respo nded that the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase was vo id b ec ause he did no t rec eive no tic e o f the o rder to dism iss. He alsoasserted that the unscheduled partnership assets rem ained assets o f the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C a se estate and all state c o urt
8dec isio ns affec ting tho se assets were therefo re also vo id fo r lac k o f

jurisdic tio n. Mr. Erde argued that he was no t a vexatio us litigant b ec ause he was m o tivated b y a go o d faith b elief that his c laim s were m erito rio us. Mr. Erde alsoobjec ted to the two rulings which the c o urt attached as exhib its, o n the b asis that they did no t address the o m itted partnership assets o r the issue o f whether Mr. Erde rec eived no tic e o f the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase and dism issal. 3. T he bankruptcy c ourt ruling The b ankruptc y c o urt o verruled Mr. Erde’s objec tio n and dism issed the c ase with prejudic e. The c o urt no t ed that Mr. Erde did no t appeal the
o rder denying default judgm ent and as a result there were nopro c eedings left in whic h Mr. Erde c o uld ob t ain a judgm ent. The c o urt alsoheld that all
o f the c laim s and allegatio ns in the adversary c o m plaint were litigated to final o rders in prio r pro c eedings and therefo re the c laim s were b arred b y issue and c laimprec lusio n. The b ankruptc y c o urt determ ined Mr. Erde to b e a vexatio us litigant after applying the fac to rs set fo rth in Mo lsk i v. Evergreen D yna sty Co rp. , 500 F.3d 1047 (9th C ir. 2007). Based on the vexatio u s litigant ho lding, the c o urt enjo ined Mr. Erde fro mfiling o rc o ntinuing any c laimfo r relief against the Bo dnar Parties witho ut first filing a m o t io n fo r perm issio n and ob taining a
c o u rt o rder. The vexatio us litigant o rder required that any m o tio n fo rperm issio n
9m ust inc lude: (1) a c o py o f the vexatio us litigant o r der; (2) a no tic e o f

hearing o n a date availab le o n the c o urt’s c alendar with at least twenty-o ne days’ no tic e; and (3) a dec laratio n setting fo rth adm issib le evidenc e to estab lish that the requested relief is no t frivo lo us, harassing, o ra c laim which had b een previo usly ruled upo n. Mr. Erde tim ely appealed. 4. T he m otions for perm is s ion to file m otion to v ac ate order Mr. Erde filed a m o tio n in the m ain c ase to vac ate the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase and toc o nso lidate that
c ase with the 2018 Bankruptcy C ase. The b ankruptcy c o urt determ ined that Mr. Erde’s go al was “tofind a pro c edural pathway toreach the partnership assets that Erde b elieves are still pro perty o f the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase and c a u se tho se alleged assets to b e adm inistered in his
c urrent chapter 11 c ase.” The c o urt stated that Mr. Erde’s argument that the assets rem ained in the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase estate was legally flawed and that there was no legal autho r ity to allo w the b ankruptc y c o urt in Mr. Erde’s perso nal c ase to vac ate the partnership dism issal o rder while ano ther c o urt still presided o ver the partnership c ase. Ho wever, the b ankruptcy c o urt denied the m o tio n o n the b asis that Mr. Erde had sought the sam e relief in his 2012 m o tio n to reo p en the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase. The b ankruptc y c o urt stated that Mr. Erde’s 2012 mo tio n to reo pen the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase was essentially a m o tio n to vac ate
10the o rder dism issing that c ase in the ho p es o f adm inistering the

partnership assets in b ankruptc y c o u rt. The m o t io n to vac ate was therefo re b arred b y c laim prec lusio n and issue prec lusio n. Mr. Erde appealed, and we affirm ed. 5 Mr. Erde then filed a sim ilar m o tio n in the adversary pro c eeding, this tim e seeking perm issio n to file the m o tio n to vac ate in the partnership c ase. The b ankruptc y c o urt denied the m o tio n b ec a use the relief Mr. Erde so ught was the sam e relief he so ught in the m o tio n filed in the adm inistrative c ase, which the c o u rt had already denied. Mr. Erde filed a sec o nd m o tio n fo r perm issio n in the adversary c ase again seeking to file a m o tio n to vac ate the o r der dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase. Mr. Erde argued that the relief was no t b arred b y c laim prec lusio n o r issue prec lusio n b ec ause no c o urt had previo usly entered a final judgm ent o n the m erits o f his c o re argum ent— that the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase was vo id b ec ause Mr. Erde did no t rec eive no tic e o f the o rder in vio latio n o f his due pro c ess rights. The b ankruptc y c o urt denied the m o tio n o n the b asis that the m ain
c ase was dismissed in Feb ruary 2019 and therefo re all pending m o tio ns were m o o t, inc luding the sec o nd m o tio n fo r perm issio n. The c o urt also
c o nc luded that Mr. Erde failed toestab lish that the sec o nd m o tio n fo r

5 S ee BAP No. CC-19-1023-S TaL (9th Ci r. BAP Nov . 12, 2019). 11perm issio n was no tfrivo lo us o r harassing and ado pted its findings and

c o nc lusio ns fro mits o r der denying the first m o t io n fo r perm issio n. 5. T he m otion for perm is s ion to file m otion to alter or am end Mr. Erde then filed a m o tio n fo r perm issio n to file a m o tio n to alter o r am end the o rder denying his sec o nd m o tio n fo r perm issio n to file a m o tio n to vac ate the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase. He argued that the c o urt erred in ruling that the sec o nd m o tio n fo rperm issio n was m o o t b ased o n the dism issal o f the m a in c ase. Mr. Erde alsoreiterated his argum ent that the m o tio n to vac ate the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase was no t frivo lo u s and no t b arred b y c laim prec lusio n o r issue prec lusio n. The b ankruptc y c o u rt denied the m o t io n. Mr. Erde tim ely appealed. JU RISD ICT ION The b ankruptc y c o urt had jurisdic tio n pursuant to28 U .S.C . §§ 1334 and 157(b )(1). W e have jurisdic tio n under 28 U .S.C . § 158. ISSU E S Whether the b a nkruptcy c o urt erred in dism issing the adversary pro c eeding and dec laring Mr. Erde a vexatio us litigant. Whether the b a nkruptcy c o urt erred in denying Mr. Erde’s request fo r perm issio n to file a m o t io n to vac ate the 1984 dism issal o rder. ST A ND A RD S OF RE V IE W W e review a dism issal o f an adversary c o m plaint de no vo . EPD Inv.
12Co ., LLC

v. Ba nk o f Am . (In re EPDInv. Co . , LLC) 523 B.R . 680, 684 (9th C ir. BA P 2015). De no vo review requires that we c o nsider the m atter as if no dec isio n had b een previo usly rendered. K a shika r v. Turnstile C

apita l M gm t., LLC(In re K

a shika r) , 567 B.R
. 160, 164 (9th C ir. BA P 2017). W e review the b a nkruptc y c o urt’s dec isio n to im po se pre-filing restric t io ns against a vexatio us litigant fo r an ab use o f disc r etio n. R i nggo ldLo ckha rt v. C ty. o

f L.A., 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). Ab ankruptcy c o u rt ab uses its disc r etio n if it applies the wro ng legal standard, m isapplies the c o rrec t legal standard, o r if its fac tual findings are illo gic al, im plausib le,
o r witho ut suppo rt in the rec o rd. Tra ffic S cho o l.co m, Inc. v. Edriver Inc. , 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th C ir. 2011). D ISCU SSION A . T he bankruptcy c ourt did not err in dis m is s ingthe adv ers ary proc eeding
. Mr. Erde’s prim ary argum ent o n appeal is that due toa lac k o f no tic e, the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase is vo id and allegedly c o nc ealed partnership assets rem ain pro perty o f the partnership’s b ankruptc y estate. He c o ntends that the b ankruptcy c o urt was required to
vac ate the vo id o rder and allo w the partnership’s assets tob e adm inistered in b a nkruptc y c o urt. Mr. Erde argues that the b ankruptcy c o urt m isapplied c laim prec lusio n and issue prec lusio n b ec ause no ne o f the prio r c ases invo lved a

13vio latio n o f due pro c ess and his c laim s were no t ac tually litigated after a

full and fair o ppo rtunity fo r litigatio n. Mr. Erde’s argument is witho ut
m erit. 1. M r. E r de’sc om plaint is barred by c laimprec lus ion
. C laimprec lusio n pro hib its relitigatio n o f “any c laim s that were raised o r c o uld have b een raised” in a prio rac tio n b etween the sam e parties o r their privies. O wens v. K a iser Fo und. H

ea lth Pla n, Inc. , 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th C ir. 2001). C laimprec lusio n b ars relitigatio n o f c laim s even if they were dec ided wro ngly in prio r litigatio n. Federa ted D ep’t S to res, Inc. v. Mo itie, 452 U
. S. 394, 398 (1981). Altho ugh c laimprec lusio n is an affirm ative defense, the b ankruptc y c o urt c an dism iss a c ase sua sponte “where the
rec o r ds o f that c o urt sho w that a previo us ac tio n c o vering the sam e subjec t
m atter and parties had b een dism issed.” H ea d wa ters Inc. v. U

nited S ta tes Fo rest S erv. , 399 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2005) (quo ting Eva rts v. W . Meta l F inishing Co . , 253 F.2d 637, 639 n.1 (9th Cir. 1958)). The prec lusive effec t o f federal judgm ents is determ ined b y federal
c o m m o n law. Taylo r v. S turgell, 553 U .S. 880, 891 (2008). U nder federal law,
c laimprec lusio n requires: (1) an identity o f c laim s; (2) a final judgm ent o n the m erits; and (3) the sam e parties o r privity b etween parties. O wens v. K a iser Fo und. H

ea lth Pla n, Inc. , 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001).
a. Identity of c laim s To determ ine whether there is an identity o f c laim s, we must
14c o nsider: (1) whether r ights o r interests estab lished in the prio r c a se wo uld

b e im paired b y pro secutio n o f the sec o nd ac tio n; (2) whether sub s tantially the sam e evidenc e is presented in the two ac tio ns; (3) whether the two
c ases invo lve infringem ent o f the sam e right; and (4) whether the two c ases arise o ut o f the sam e transac tio nal nuc leus o f fac ts. H a rris v. C ty. o

f O ra nge, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012). The fo urth fac to ris the m o s t im po rtant. Id. A ltho ugh Mr. Erde’s legal theo ries have changed, his c laim that he is entitled to 50% o f the partnership’s purpo rted assets is the sam e c laimhe
m ade in the 2009 A dversaries, the 2012 m o tio n to reo pen the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase, and the 2015 m o tio n to reo pen the 2009 Bankruptcy C ase. The rights o f the Bo dnar Parties have b een estab lished in prio r c ases and wo uld b e im paired b y pro secutio n o f the present adversary pro c eeding. Mr. Erde relies o n the sam e evidenc e and argues the sam e infringem ent o f his rights, that he was deprived b y the Bo dnar Parties o f half o f the partnership assets. A ll o f his c laim s arise o u t o f the sam e transac tio nal nuc leus o f fac ts. There is an identity o f c laim s and the first elem ent o f c laimprec lusio n is satisfied.

b. Final judg m ent and s am e parties The sec o nd and third elem ents are alsosatisfied b ec ause in the prio r litigatio n effo rts, Mr. Erde either so ught relief direc t ly against the Bo dnar
15Parties o r so ught to rec o ver and adm inister 50% o f the partnership assets

which he alleged were in the po ssessio n o f the Bo dnar Parties. Final judgm ents were entered o n the c laim s in each o f the prio r c ases, and tho se judgm ents were either affirm ed o r no t appealed. The c laim s asserted b y Mr. Erde are b arred b y c laimprec lusio n, and the b ankruptc y c o urt did no t err in dism issing the c o m plaint. B. T he bankruptcy c ourt did not err in determ iningM r. E rde to be a v exatious litig ant
. Mr. Erde argues that his litigatio n was no tab usive, and the b ankruptc y c o urt erred in determ ining that he is a vexatio us litigant b ec ause his c laim s were m erito rio us. W e disagree. Bankruptcy c o urts have inherent autho rity to im po se sanc tio ns to deter vexatio u s litigatio n. S e e Dyer v. Lindbla d e (In re Dyer) , 322 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th C ir. 2003) (“The inherent sanc tio n autho r ity allo ws a b ankruptcy c o u rt to deter . . . im pro per litigatio n tac t ic s.”); Ca ldwell v. U nified Capita l Co rp. (In re R a inbo w Maga z ine, Inc.) , 77 F.3d 278, 284 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[B]ankruptc y c o urts have the inherent po wer to sanc tio n vexatio us c o nduc t presented b efo re the c o urt.”). The N inth C irc uit has held that b efo re a c o urt c an dec lare a litigant vexatio us and im po se pre-filing restric tio ns, it must:

(1) give litigants no tic e and “an o p po rtunity to o ppo se the o rder b efo re it [is] entered”; (2) c o m pile an adequate rec o rd fo r appellate review, inc luding
16“a listing o f all the c ases and m o t io ns that led the distric t c o urt to c o nc lude that a vexatio u s litigant o rder was needed”; (3) m a ke sub stantive findings o f frivo lo usness o r harassm ent; and (4) tailo r the o rder narro wly so as “toc lo sely fit the spec ificvic e enc o untered.” R inggo ld-Lo ckha rt v. C ty. o f Lo s Angeles , 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (quo ting D e Lo ng v. H

e nnessey , 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990). The first two fac to rs are pro c edural and the sec o nd two are sub stantive. Id. In applying the sub stantive fac to rs, c o u rts mu st c o nsider: (1) the litigant's histo r y o f litigatio n and in particular whether it entailed vexatio us, harassing o r duplic ative lawsuits; (2) the litigant's m o t ive in pursuing the litigatio n, e.g., do es the litigant have an obj ec tive go o d faith expec tatio n o f prevailing? ; (3) whether the litigant is represented b y c o unsel; (4) whether the litigant has c aused needless expense to o ther parties o r has po sed an unnec essary b urden o n the c o u rts and their perso nnel; and (5) whether o ther sanc t io ns wo uld b e adequate topro t ec t the c o urts and o ther parties. Id. (quo ting Mo lsk i v. Evergreen D yna sty Co rp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007). The b ankruptc y c o urt gave Mr. Erde no tic e and an o ppo rtunity to
o ppo se the vexatio us litigant o rder b y issuing the o rder to sho w c ause and
c o nduc ting a hearing. It also c o m piled a list o f prio r ac tio ns initiated b y

17Mr. Erde against the Bo dnar Parties and attached two rulings which

m etic ulo usly desc rib ed his litigatio n histo ry. The b ankruptc y c o urt then m a de sub stantive findings that Mr. Erde’s litigatio n was frivo lo us and harassing b ec ause Mr. Erde’s effo rt to ob tain 50% o f the alleged partnership assets had b een previo usly ruled upo n in several prio r c ases and was b arred b y c laimprec lusio n. Finally, the b a nkruptc y c o urt lim ited its pre-filing o rder to c auses o f
ac tio n against the Bo d nar Parties and perm itted Mr. Erde to ob t ain perm issio n to file ac tio ns that were dem o nstrab ly no t vexatio us and no t b arred b y c laim prec lusio n o r issue prec lusio n. The b ankruptc y c o urt did no t err in determ ining Mr. Erde to b e a vexatio us litigant o r in estab lishing the pre-filing pro c edures. C. T he bankruptcy c ourt properly denied the m otion for perm is s ion
. Mr. Erde argues that the b ankruptcy c o urt did no t have disc retio n to refuse to vac ate a vo id o rder and therefo re, the c o urt was required toallo w Mr. Erde to file a m o tio n to vac ate the dism issal o f the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase. A gain, we disagree. Mr. Erde’s sec o nd request fo r perm issio n do es no t satisfy the prefiling c o nditio ns im po s ed in the vexatio us litigant o rder b ec ause the relief
so ught is b arred b y c laimprec lusio n. Mr. Erde’s 2012 m o tio n to reo pen the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C a se was essentially an attem pt to vac ate the dism issal o rder and adm inister alleged partnership assets. That m o t io n
18was denied and affirm ed o n appeal.

Mr. Erde alsofiled a m o tio n to vac ate the 1984 dism issal o rder in his
m ain c ase. That m o tio n was denied and affirm ed o n appeal. His adversary
c o m p laint also inc luded a c laimthat the o rder dism issing the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase was vo id ab initio . That c o m plaint was dism issed with prejudic e. Mr. Erde did no t estab lish that his m o tio n to vac ate was a request fo r relief whic h had no t b een c laim ed, requested, o rruled o n b y prio r c o urts, and therefo re he did no t satisfy the c o nditio ns o f the vexatio us litigant
o rder. The b ankruptcy c o urt c o rrec tly denied him perm issio n to file the
m o tio n to vac ate. CONCL U SION Fo r the reaso ns set fo rth ab o ve, we A FFIRM the b ankruptcy c o urt's
o rder dism issing the adversary c o m plaint with prejudic e, determ ining Mr. Erde to b e a vexatio us litigant, and im po sing pre-filing requirem ents. W e also A FFIRM the b ankruptcy c o urt’s o rder denying Mr. Erde perm issio n to file a m o tio n to vac ate the 1984 Partnership Bankruptcy C ase.

19