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

KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUSSELL AINSWORTH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND 

REQUEST TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF 

VEXATIOUS

Re: Dkt. No. 50

On August 10, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions and requested that Plaintiff

Kevin Quillinan be declared a vexatious litigant. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 50.)

Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution 

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and, for the reasons set forth below, 

DENIES Defendants’ motion for sanctions and their request to declare Plaintiff vexatious.

I. BACKGROUND

The undersigned incorporates the background facts described in the order granting 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss, which was filed concurrently with this order.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek an award of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to recover 

their attorneys’ fees and costs, and request that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant. (Def.’s 

Mot. at 19.)

A. Sanctions

Defendants argue that Plaintiff violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by filing a 

factually and legally frivolous lawsuit. (Defs.’ Mot. at 13.) Rule 11 imposes upon attorneys and 

pro se litigants a duty to certify that they have read any pleadings or motions they file with the 

court and that such pleadings and motions are well-grounded in fact, have a colorable basis in law, 
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

and are not filed for an improper purpose. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). If a court finds a violation of this 

duty, it may impose appropriate sanctions to deter similar conduct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1); see 

also Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990) (“[T]he central purpose of Rule 

11 is to deter baseless filings in district court.”). Whether to award sanctions under Rule 11 is 

within the discretion of the district court, because the awarding of such sanctions “is an 

extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1); 

Operating Eng'rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges five causes of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and a single cause of action under 21 

U.S.C. § 843(c)(2)(A). (First Am. Compl., “FAC,” Dkt. No. 8.) Generally, Plaintiff claims that the 

defendants’ alleged marijuana cultivation enterprise resulted in the termination of a month-tomonth storage unit lease, which eventually led to him and his wife sustaining a financial loss to 

their business as a result of having to vacate.

Defendants seek to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs expended in defending this 

litigation, which they claim is an attempt at extortion. (Defs.’ Mot. at 3-4, 6.) Defendants further 

argue that, by Plaintiff’s own admission, his damages have nothing to do with the alleged 

racketeering. (Defs.’ Mot. at 14.) The Court agrees, and dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit with 

prejudice. Notwithstanding, while the Court is concerned with Defendants’ descriptions of 

Plaintiff’s pre-filing behavior, which, if true, could be grounds for Rule 11 sanctions, civil RICO 

is complicated, so the Court declines to impose sanctions under Rule 11.

B. Vexatious Litigant

Defendants request that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant for filing this and other 

purportedly harassing and frivolous lawsuits. (Defs.’ Mot. at 2.) When a litigant has filed 

numerous harassing or frivolous lawsuits, the Court has the discretion to declare him a vexatious 

litigant and enter an order requiring that any future complaints be subject to an initial review 

before they are filed. District courts have the power to enter pre-trial filing orders against a 

vexatious litigant under the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty 

Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir 2007). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that "such pre-filing 
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

orders are an extreme remedy that should rarely be used" because of the danger of "tread[ing] on 

a litigant's due process right of access to the courts." Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057. Nevertheless, 

such pre-filing orders may be appropriate because "[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process . . . 

enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the 

meritorious claims of other litigants." De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 

1990).

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has filed 30 lawsuits in state and federal court, 12 of 

which were filed in the last seven years. (Defs.’ Mot. at 17.) While Defendants describe several 

cases in their motion, the Court is unable to evaluate whether the lawsuits were clearly frivolous. 

For example, Plaintiff’s social security appeal, filed on October 19, 2011, was dismissed, because 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Order Granting Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, 

Quillinan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 11-cv-05136-SI (N.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2012), ECF No. 22. 

Thus, at least one case cited was dismissed due to Plaintiff’s ignorance of the legal process, rather 

than for purposefully filing a frivolous or harassing lawsuit. Moreover, in Plaintiff’s declaration 

in support of his opposition, Plaintiff explains why he dismissed certain cases. (Decl. of Kevin 

Quillinan, “Quillinan Decl.,” Dkt. No. 57-1 ¶¶ 2-15.) Thus, while certain cases certainly appear to 

lack merit and could be viewed as harassing, the record is inadequate to support the conclusion 

that Plaintiff’s filings are so numerous or abusive that they should be enjoined. See De Long, 912 

F.2d at 1148. The Court notes that additional information could have resulted in a different 

outcome, so Plaintiff is advised to be more discerning in filing lawsuits going forward.

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ request to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for sanctions and request to declare Plaintiff 

a vexatious litigant is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge