Court Opinion

ID: 9960660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 19:02:37.080261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:43.578917
License: Public Domain

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
                 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203

                                   2024 CO 8

                      Supreme Court Case No. 23SA146
                    Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21

                                     In Re
                                  Petitioners:

          GHP Horwath, P.C.; Nadine Pietrowski; Bohn Aguilar, LLC;
                Michael G. Bohn; and Armando Y. Aguilar,

                                       v.

                                 Respondent:

                               Nina H. Kazazian.

                             Rule Made Absolute
                                   en banc
                              February 20, 2024

Attorneys for Petitioners:
Bohn Aguilar, LLC
Michael G. Bohn
Armando Y. Aguilar
      Lakewood, Colorado

Respondent Nina H. Kazazian, pro se
     Vail, Colorado

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Atrium Condominium Association, Inc.:
Nemirow Perez P.C.
Miles L. Buckingham
      Denver, Colorado
Wollenweber Freedman, P.C.
Lee H. Freedman
     Lakewood, Colorado

PER CURIAM.
¶1    “Every person has an undisputed right of access to the Colorado courts of

justice.” People v. Dunlap, 623 P.2d 408, 410 (Colo. 1981). Yet while article II,

section 6 of the Colorado Constitution affords litigants the right to the

administration of justice “without sale, denial or delay,” this right is impeded

when a pro se party “pursues myriad claims without regard to relevant rules of

procedural and substantive law.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Morgan Cnty. v. Winslow,

862 P.2d 921, 923 (Colo. 1993). In those rare instances, the pro se litigant’s right of

access to our state courts is not absolute and may be curtailed to cease continued

disruption of judicial administration. In fact, we have “the duty and the power to

protect courts, citizens and opposing parties from the deleterious impact of

repetitive, unfounded pro se litigation.” Id. at 924 (quoting Dunlap, 623 P.2d at 410).

By balancing a pro se litigant’s “right of access” against the interests of the public,

we heed that duty. Francis v. Wegener, 2021 CO 66, ¶ 59, 494 P.3d 598, 608.

¶2    This case requires such a balancing. In the past eleven years, respondent,

Nina H. Kazazian, has initiated no fewer than ten lawsuits and twice as many

appeals—most of which courts have found to be duplicative, meritless, or

otherwise frivolous. Her actions have resulted in admonishment, sanctions, and

ultimately her disbarment from the practice of law. Now, no longer constrained

by the ethical obligations of attorneys, Kazazian persists as a pro se party, creating

new proceedings or prolonging old ones to continue her fruitless attempts at

                                          3
relitigating long-decided issues. This vexatious behavior has led petitioners—

GHP Horwath, P.C.; Nadine Pietrowski; Bohn Aguilar, LLC; Michael G. Bohn; and

Armando Y. Aguilar (collectively “Petitioners”)—to ask us to permanently enjoin

Kazazian from proceeding pro se in Colorado state courts. We recognize that this

opinion is lengthy and a cumbersome read, but considering the extraordinary

relief requested and Kazazian’s actions, the details are necessary. Faced with the

grievous nature of Kazazian’s misuse of the legal system, we are compelled to

grant Petitioners’ requested relief.

                        I. Facts and Procedural History

¶3    To be perfectly clear about why we are taking such dramatic action, we will

describe in detail Kazazian’s actions in the related underlying matters.1

¶4    Petitioners and amicus curiae Atrium Condominium Association, Inc.

(“Atrium”) raise two separate timelines of facts that undergird the issues with

Kazazian. We will describe the facts relating to Petitioners first and the facts

relating to Atrium second.

1 We take judicial notice that Kazazian has initiated other lawsuits not involving

Petitioners or Atrium Condominium Association, Inc. Cf. Hanlen v. Gessler, 2014
CO 24, ¶ 23 n.10, 333 P.3d 41, 47 n.10 (taking judicial notice of court records in a
related proceeding). We decline to significantly address these other lawsuits
because the multitude of cases involving Petitioners and Atrium are sufficient to
support our conclusion today.

                                         4
                        A. Cases Involving Petitioners

¶5    GHP Horwath, P.C. (“GHP”) is a now-dissolved accounting firm. Kazazian

retained GHP through her divorce attorney to perform an evaluation of her

then-husband’s business. After Kazazian’s divorce attorney withdrew from her

case, GHP exited without producing an expert report.

                     1. Initial Small Claims Proceeding2

¶6    In August 2013, Kazazian commenced a small claims proceeding against

GHP seeking return of the retainer she had paid for the expert report, plus attorney

fees.3 After a transfer requested by GHP,4 a voluntary dismissal at Kazazian’s

request, GHP’s appeal of that dismissal,5 a remand, and a hearing in the Denver

County Small Claims Court, Kazazian prevailed. She won a portion ($2,100) of the

retainer, with judgment deferred pending resolution of the parties’ requests for

attorney fees, which were to be determined at a later hearing.

2 Eagle County Small Claims Court Case No. 13S80.

3 Kazazian would also sue her first and second divorce attorney (and attempt to

join their attorneys), District Court, City and County of Denver, Case Nos. 14CV76
and 14CV77; her ex-husband’s divorce attorney, Eagle County District Court Case
No. 12CV1041; and her post-dissolution attorneys, Douglas County District Court
Case Nos. 14CV30074 and 15CV30008.
4 Denver County Small Claims Court Case No. 13S974.

5 District Court, City and County of Denver, Case No. 14CV30271.

                                         5
¶7    Shortly before the attorney-fees hearing, GHP offered Kazazian $10,000 to

settle the matter and dismiss the case with prejudice. After requesting that a

signed, notarized copy of the settlement agreement be sent to her for her

acceptance and signature, Kazazian rejected the offer and made a counteroffer for

$10,800, which GHP did not accept. At the attorney-fees hearing, the parties stated

that they had not reached a settlement; Kazazian was then awarded a final

judgment of $2,360. Subsequently, Kazazian emailed GHP representing that she

had previously signed GHP’s $10,000 offer and had dropped it in the mailbox. She

attached a copy of the signed and notarized agreement, now countersigned by

Kazazian, and demanded payment of $10,000. GHP disregarded this demand and

sent Kazazian a check for the final judgment amount of $2,360, which she

eventually cashed.

               2. Breach of Settlement Agreement Lawsuit6

¶8    About a month later, in June 2016, Kazazian sued GHP and its CEO, Nadine

Pietrowski, alleging that they had breached the settlement agreement from the

small claims case. The district court granted GHP summary judgment with costs,

finding that no contract existed as to the settlement agreement. Specifically, the

court found that Kazazian failed to accept the settlement offer by the deadline,

6 District Court, City and County of Denver, Case No. 16CV32258.

                                        6
affirmatively rejected the offer, and instead made a counteroffer with materially

different terms. The court also held that Kazazian’s actions—including making a

counteroffer, explicitly rejecting GHP’s offer, and submitting hearing exhibits that

did not include a settlement agreement—clearly indicated that she did not

honestly believe she had accepted the settlement offer.

                3. Appeal of Summary Judgment and Costs7

¶9    In April 2017, after receiving several extensions of time yet still filing late,

Kazazian appealed the district court’s summary judgment order.             After oral

argument, a division of the court of appeals affirmed. Furthermore, the division

awarded GHP its appellate attorney fees, holding that Kazazian’s appeal was

substantially frivolous or groundless.        Specifically, the division held that

Kazazian’s arguments were contrary to the most fundamental concepts of contract

law and not rationally grounded in credible evidence.            The division then

remanded the case to the district court to determine GHP’s appellate attorney fees.

        4. Attorney Fees and Costs Claims Arising from Breach of
                      Settlement Agreement Lawsuit

¶10   Following the summary judgment order, GHP and Pietrowski moved the

district court for attorney fees, arguing that Kazazian’s breach of settlement

7 Court of Appeals Case No. 17CA609.

                                          7
agreement lawsuit lacked substantial justification. A day late, Kazazian filed an

opposition to GHP’s bill of costs and later a motion to strike GHP’s reply. The

district court awarded GHP the costs it had requested, ordered that the motion for

attorney fees be set for hearing, and denied Kazazian’s motion to strike. In

advance of the hearing, Kazazian attempted to subpoena GHP’s executives, but

the subpoenas were quashed.

¶11   After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Kazazian’s claim

was substantially frivolous and groundless because she “presented no rational

argument based on evidence or law to support her breach of contract claim,” and

that instead “the evidence demonstrated that no one, especially an experienced

lawyer, would have believed that a contract existed.” The district court awarded

GHP and Pietrowski $17,757.50 in attorney fees.8 Kazazian appealed the award.9

She also moved for reconsideration of the court’s order, which the district

court denied.

¶12   Kazazian sought a stay of the judgment pending the appeal. After GHP

attempted to satisfy the judgment by garnishing two of Kazazian’s bank accounts,

8 The court initially awarded $27,657.50 but later amended this to $17,757.50 in

attorney fees and $568.63 in costs for defense of the breach of contract claim, and
$147.73 for the bill of costs.
9 See infra Part I.A.5 regarding Court of Appeals Case No. 17CA1939.

                                        8
Kazazian filed two claims of exemption and moved to vacate the writ of

garnishment. After two hearings,10 the court denied both claims of exemption, the

motion to vacate, and the motion to stay.        GHP then served Kazazian with

interrogatories and a subpoena for a C.R.C.P. 69 examination to be held in

November 2018. After filing a motion to quash, a motion for entry of partial

satisfaction of judgment, a motion for leave to deposit the balance of the judgment

with the court pending appeal, a second motion for stay of the judgment, a notice

of satisfaction of judgment, a second motion to quash, and after the court held

another hearing, Kazazian finally gave GHP a check for the judgment covering the

breach of contract attorney fees and costs.

10 For the first hearing, Kazazian filed a motion requesting that the hearing be reset

for a different time, that the hearing proceed by telephone, and that the court issue
written orders.       The court denied the motions.          Kazazian moved for
reconsideration, which was granted in part, allowing Kazazian to appear by
telephone. Kazazian then moved to have a different judge preside over the
hearing, which was denied. The judge issued a minute order noticing the hearing.
Kazazian filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the minute order. The first
hearing was continued at Kazazian’s request. In that motion, she also raised the
argument that because GHP had dissolved, its attorney, Bohn, could no longer
seek to satisfy GHP’s judgment against her.

                                          9
                5. Appeal of Order Granting Attorney Fees11

¶13   While the underlying district court case was proceeding, Kazazian appealed

the district court’s award of attorney fees. She also moved to stay the underlying

proceedings, which the court denied. After receiving two extensions of time,

Kazazian filed a “draft” opening brief,12 an amended opening brief, a combined

reply and answer (after three further extensions of time), and a motion to both

strike GHP’s combined opening brief and answer and to dismiss GHP’s

cross-appeal.13 Eventually, a division of the court of appeals affirmed the district

court’s grant of attorney fees.

¶14   Pertinent here, the division agreed with the district court that Kazazian “had

invented her claim ‘out of whole cloth,’” that her assertions were “incredible,” that

she “made no effort to determine the validity of her claim,” that she “made no

attempt to reduce or dismiss her invalid claims,” and that she “made no attempt

to demonstrate that the facts bearing upon the validity of her claim were somehow

unavailable to her from the inception.” The division concluded that Kazazian’s

11 Court of Appeals Case No. 17CA1939.

12 The court of appeals characterized the brief as “a draft pleading,” because it

featured a large “draft” watermark on each page; it was also improperly
designated as “suppressed.” The court struck the brief.
13 Kazazian argued that because GHP had dissolved, it could no longer “act in this

appeal,” contrary to section 7-114-105(2)(e), C.R.S. (2023).

                                         10
complaint was “nothing more than an ‘attempt at revisionist history’ in order ‘to

create something of an “insurance policy” in the event of an unfavorable result

following the hearing’ in small claims court,” meaning she had no legal or factual

grounds upon which to pursue a breach of contract claim.

¶15   Further, the division held that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in determining the amount of fees awarded. In addressing Kazazian’s conclusory

arguments to the contrary, the division stated that Kazazian’s characterization of

GHP’s counsel’s conduct as vexatious “look[ed] a lot like a case of the ‘pot calling

the kettle black,’” considering that the district court had summarized Kazazian’s

breach of contract suit as “the very epitome of prosecuting an action in bad faith.”

¶16   Finally, the division awarded GHP attorney fees related to defending

against Kazazian’s combined motion to strike and motion to dismiss GHP’s

combined answer and opening brief because her pleading was frivolous.

           6. Attorney Fees and Costs Resulting from Summary
                Judgment Appeal and Attorney Fees Appeal

¶17   At the conclusion of both appeals, each party filed a bill of costs with the

district court. Additionally, GHP submitted a summary of attorney fees resulting

from defending Kazazian’s appeal of summary judgment and her combined

motion to strike and dismiss. Kazazian filed her bill of costs four days late, along

with separate objections to each of GHP’s bills of costs after two separate

extensions of time for each.

                                         11
¶18   At Kazazian’s request, the court set an hour-long evidentiary hearing on

GHP’s attorney fees. In advance of the hearing, Kazazian requested limited

discovery (denied because the issue at bar was narrow—the reasonableness of

fees); subpoenaed a former GHP attorney, Blake Callaway, to attend the hearing

(quashed with fees awarded to Callaway because his testimony would be “wholly

immaterial”); requested an extension of time in responding to the motion to quash

Callaway’s subpoena; and requested that the hearing be continued. Then, two

days before the hearing, Kazazian moved to vacate the hearing, which the

court granted.

¶19   Later, Kazazian moved for reconsideration of the motion to quash; the court

denied the motion because Kazazian had failed to allege any “manifest error of

fact or law” as required by C.R.C.P. 121, section 1-15(11). When Callaway filed his

required affidavit for attorney fees, Kazazian opposed it (after an extension of

time) and once again requested an evidentiary hearing on the affidavit. The court

denied the request because Kazazian did not provide any basis, affidavit,

argument, or other documentation to support her request for an evidentiary

hearing.   The court then awarded Callaway a downward-adjusted $1,000 in

attorney fees.

¶20   In October 2019, the district court issued an order awarding GHP $22,169

for costs and fees related to the motion for summary judgment and the attorney

                                        12
fee appeals. Because Kazazian had $1,515 in costs, the court reduced GHP’s award

to $20,654. Kazazian moved for post-judgment relief, requesting that a new

hearing on the reasonableness of the fees be set, that the judgment be vacated, and

that the court set forth findings of fact and rulings of law. The court denied

the motion.

        7. Appeal of Attorney Fees Award, Motion to Quash, and
                   Order Denying C.R.C.P. 59 Motion14

¶21   In December 2019, Kazazian appealed the district court’s orders awarding

GHP attorney fees and costs, granting Callaway’s motion to quash, and denying

Kazazian’s request for post-judgment relief. Prior to filing the opening brief,

Kazazian moved for a limited remand for an evidentiary hearing (based on the

frivolous argument regarding GHP’s dissolution, see infra note 13 and

accompanying text). The court of appeals denied the motion because Kazazian

hadn’t filed the required C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion in the district court.        GHP

requested related fees.

¶22   After four extensions of time, Kazazian filed her opening brief and then—six

days before GHP’s answer brief was due—a significantly amended opening brief,

causing GHP to file both an answer and an amended answer. After receiving an

14 Court of Appeals Case No. 19CA2347.

                                        13
extension of time and having her reply briefs stricken for noncompliance with

C.A.R. 28(h), Kazazian filed her reply brief.   Then, after a postponement at

Kazazian’s request, the court of appeals heard oral argument; it subsequently

affirmed the $20,654 in attorney fees and costs to GHP and the $1,000 in attorney

fees to Callaway. The court denied Kazazian’s petition for rehearing.

       8. Kazazian’s Dubious Formation of GHP Horwath P.C. II
                         and Related Lawsuit15

¶23   Meanwhile, back in November 2018, Kazazian formed an entity named

“GHP Horwath P.C.” (“GHP II”) with the Colorado Secretary of State. Then, in

May 2019, Kazazian began corresponding with GHP’s attorney, Bohn, purporting

to be the attorney for GHP. In that correspondence, Kazazian demanded that the

attorney fees check she paid to the real GHP in November 2018 be handed over to

her newly incorporated GHP II.

¶24   In July 2019, Kazazian filed a complaint on behalf of GHP II against Bohn,

Aguilar, and their law firm.     She alleged that Bohn and Aguilar were not

authorized to represent GHP and that they’d taken the attorney fees award and

withheld it from GHP, but she alleged no specific legal claim. Bohn, on behalf of

15 Jefferson County District Court Case No. 19CV31103.

                                       14
the real GHP, moved to disqualify Kazazian as GHP’s attorney. In early August

2019, Kazazian voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

              9. Post-Appeal Filings in Breach of Settlement
                             Agreement Case

¶25   Back in the district court, in June 2020, as Kazazian was appealing the

attorney fees to GHP, GHP again moved to serve Kazazian with post-judgment

interrogatories and a subpoena for a C.R.C.P. 69 assets hearing.         Kazazian

eventually filed notice that she had responded to the interrogatories and tried to

suspend GHP’s collection. As a result, GHP moved for contempt related to the

deficient discovery responses. A few months later, Kazazian moved to quash the

Rule 69 subpoena.     In September 2020, after full briefing, the court found

Kazazian’s request mostly “overbroad and meritless” and ordered that she

supplement her responses to GHP’s interrogatories. After an extension of time

(and a day late), Kazazian filed unsigned responses to the interrogatories and

“objections” to the September orders.

¶26   GHP filed a second motion for contempt regarding deficiencies in the

responses to the interrogatories.    In early November, Kazazian filed three

pleadings: a motion to compel GHP to file a partial satisfaction of judgment;

supplemental answers to the interrogatories; and a motion for an extension of time

to respond to the contempt citation. The court granted GHP’s motion for a

contempt citation and struck from the record Kazazian’s “objections” to the court’s

                                        15
September orders. Kazazian moved to strike GHP’s response to her motion to

compel. The court denied the motion to compel, stating that it “lack[ed] merit and

appear[ed] to have been filed for an improper purpose.” Similarly, the court

denied the motion to strike because it lacked merit, noting that because Kazazian

“has repeatedly accused defense counsel of falsehoods, unprofessional (indeed,

criminal) behavior, and taking numerous actions based on ulterior motives,” her

motion “rings hollow.” Later, GHP moved for attorney fees related to the motion

to compel.

¶27   In December 2020, the district court issued a contempt citation regarding the

unpaid judgment. Twenty days later, GHP received a check from Kazazian for

$19,354, the remaining amount due on the judgment, less accrued interest. As a

result, GHP filed a motion requesting a status conference. The court ordered

expedited briefing on the motion, but instead of filing her response, Kazazian

moved (a day late) for an extension of time to respond and for entry of satisfaction

of judgment. After an attempt by Kazazian to vacate the status conference, the

court denied Kazazian’s motion for entry of satisfaction of judgment.

¶28   In February 2021, with the judgment still not fully paid, the court issued a

second contempt citation, setting advisement for March. The next day, Kazazian

filed a second motion for entry of full satisfaction of judgment. The same day that

GHP filed its response, Kazazian filed a reply, arguing (incorrectly) that GHP had

                                        16
responded late. The court struck the reply because it was inaccurate and contained

“attacks on the Court,” and it ordered a proper reply due the following week.

After Kazazian filed that reply (a day late), the court struck it as well, noting that

Kazazian had equated GHP’s arguments to “vomit,” which negated the reply

under C.R.C.P. 12(f).

¶29   The case then went quiet for a few months as the parties shifted their

attention to the appeal related to attorney fees, see supra Part I.A.7, and in August

2021, the district court announced that it would delay rulings in the case until that

appeal was decided. In February 2022, after the appeal concluded, GHP filed its

appellate bill of costs for $376, which the court approved.         Further motions

practice, with extensions of time for Kazazian, also resumed. Notably, the district

court struck a response by Kazazian because she filed it under seal without leave

of the court to do so, and because it contained “numerous immaterial and

impertinent attacks on defense counsel” and was “highly disrespectful of the

Court, bordering on contemptuous.” In April, the court denied Kazazian’s second

motion for entry of full satisfaction of judgment because her statutory argument

lacked merit and because interest was still outstanding. Between September and

December, Kazazian filed five motions or pleadings with the court, which were all

denied because they were either “untimely . . . [and] vexatious,” “untimely [and]

redundant,” or “untimely and meritless.”

                                         17
¶30   In January 2023, the court granted a motion by GHP for attorney fees

relating to one of the fall 2022 motions, entering judgment for $7,206 with interest.

After the court denied Kazazian’s motion to vacate, GHP filed a motion requesting

a standing objection to Kazazian’s motions.        The court granted the motion,

ordering that it would be assumed that GHP opposed any motions filed by

Kazazian, and that GHP need not respond to future or pending motions unless the

court issued an order requesting otherwise.

¶31   In March, Kazazian filed a satisfaction of judgment in full, and GHP moved

to strike because the judgment still had not been satisfied. The court granted the

motion to strike and further ordered that “under penalty of contempt of court,

[Kazazian] is prohibited from filing in this Court any further unilateral

satisfactions of judgment, or requests for satisfactions of judgment, without the

approval and signature of Defendants’ counsel.”         Undeterred, six days later

Kazazian filed a “Notice and Motion for Entry of Satisfaction of Judgment Full,”

without GHP counsel’s signature. The court promptly struck the filing, found that

Kazazian was in indirect contempt of court, and instructed GHP to set a contempt

advisement hearing; it also issued a contempt citation. The next day, Kazazian

moved to vacate the court’s two March orders and the contempt citation, which

the court denied.

                                         18
¶32   In June, after GHP served Kazazian with a contempt citation, Kazazian

moved to quash, arguing that she had not been properly served. In the interest of

judicial economy, the court dismissed the contempt citation and vacated all future

dates. Likewise, the court denied GHP’s motion for attorney fees regarding

Kazazian’s motion to compel because “it would not serve any purpose given the

posture of the case.”

          10. Appeal of Order Granting Attorney Fees Regarding
                            Motion to Vacate16

¶33   In March 2023, Kazazian appealed the district court’s January order

awarding attorney fees to GHP for responding to Kazazian’s vexatious motion to

vacate. Kazazian requested and received an extension of time to file her opening

brief, but she still failed to meet the filing deadline. The court of appeals issued a

rule to show cause, and when Kazazian failed to respond, it dismissed the appeal

with prejudice in October 2023.

                          B. Cases Involving Atrium

¶34   We now turn to the facts pertaining to a second, unrelated matter involving

Kazazian and Atrium, a Colorado homeowners’ association.

16 Court of Appeals Case No. 23CA362.

                                         19
                      1. Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action17

¶35   In August 2015, Atrium filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure against

Kazazian and her corporate entity, NHK Investments (“NHK”), regarding a condo

located in Denver. After dilatory tactics,18 Kazazian entered a limited entry of

appearance, moved to quash service of process, and moved to vacate an order

permitting service by mail.     The court denied the motions and ordered that

Kazazian file an answer. Kazazian requested an extension of time and then hired

an attorney to represent her in the matter, but she also continued filing documents

on her own behalf. After her attorney missed a discovery deadline, he moved to

withdraw, alleging that Kazazian had contacted his malpractice insurance carrier

about a possible claim.       The court granted the motion, finding that “the

attorney/client relationship has broken down completely.” Kazazian entered her

appearance on her own behalf and requested that the discovery deadline be

extended once again. Eventually, the court held a discovery hearing and denied

further extensions.

17 District Court, City and County of Denver, Case No. 15CV32907.

18Inter alia, Kazazian denied authority to accept service on behalf of NHK,
represented that she was not a member of NHK, and continually claimed she was
unavailable for a hearing on service.

                                        20
¶36   Trial was set for December 2016. As the date drew close, Kazazian moved

to dismiss, filed three separate motions for summary judgment, and requested

clarification of the court’s prior orders. In responding to Kazazian’s request for

clarification, the court pointed to ongoing delays, stated that the case was “not

factually or legally complex,” and emphasized that it wouldn’t push the case from

its scheduled trial date. The court also denied the motion to dismiss. Kazazian

then sought certification of both orders under C.R.C.P. 54(b); the court denied the

motion because none of the claims had been adjudicated.               Disregarding

established appellate rules, Kazazian filed an interlocutory appeal of that order;

the court of appeals dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The district court later

denied all three of Kazazian’s motions for summary judgment.

¶37   In September, while still represented by counsel, Kazazian moved to

continue the trial on her own behalf, and NHK—through its manager, Bo

Karlson19—requested the same. After a telephone hearing in November, the court

continued the December trial by ten days to accommodate Kazazian’s schedule.

The court stated that it wouldn’t further continue the trial unless new counsel or

Kazazian entered an appearance on behalf of NHK. After Kazazian filed three

19 Pleadings by NHK listing Bo Karlson as the filer sometimes spell his name

“Karlson” and other times spell it “Karlsson.” We selected one for clarity.

                                        21
successive entries of appearance—the first for the purpose of resetting the hearing

(struck by the court), the second with several conditions (causing the court to deny

a continuance), and the third finally as trial counsel—the court ordered that the

trial date be reset, pending agreement of the parties on a new date. At the eleventh

hour, Kazazian called the court to accept a June 2017 date previously offered by

Atrium’s counsel, Wendy Weigler. Kazazian subsequently moved to continue the

trial; the court denied the motion, finding that the parties “have had more than

ample advance notice of the trial date.”

                  2. Mediation and Settlement Agreement

¶38   The parties attended mediation in May 2017. At mediation, the parties

agreed that NHK would sell the condo unit within six months and that Atrium

would receive an initial payment of $10,000 within thirty days of mediation and

another after the unit sold. If the unit did not sell within six months, then NHK

and Kazazian would confess an order and decree of foreclosure. After Kazazian

attempted to rescind the agreement, Atrium filed the settlement agreement with

the court, requesting that it be approved and enforced.

¶39   Kazazian objected, and after a telephone conference, the court set the matter

for an evidentiary hearing. Kazazian, on behalf of herself and NHK, moved to

continue both the evidentiary hearing and the June trial. The court denied the

motion, lamenting the sluggish nature of the case—that it was “now 647 days old,”

                                           22
that the record contained over 400 filings, that the trial date had been addressed

no less than fifteen times, and that the underlying issue was “not factually

complex”—and noting that “[i]t is in the interest of not only the litigants but also

other litigants in this court and to the general public that, at some reasonable point,

there should be an end to litigation.” After the evidentiary hearing, the court

granted Atrium’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Kazazian appealed

that order.20

                3. First Lawsuit Against Atrium and Its Attorneys21

¶40   In July 2017, Kazazian filed a lawsuit against Weigler’s law firm, Weigler

individually, one of Weigler’s law partners, Atrium’s president, Atrium, and

seven unnamed members of Atrium’s board (collectively “Defendants”).

Defendants moved to dismiss, alleging in pertinent part that the complaint was a

collateral attack on the court’s prior rulings in the judicial foreclosure action. After

an extension of time, Kazazian filed her response a day late. In January 2018,

following a flurry of filings between the parties, Kazazian voluntarily dismissed

the complaint.

20 See infra Part I.B.5 regarding Court of Appeals Case No. 17CA1247.

21 Jefferson County District Court Case No. 17CV31162.

                                          23
                                 4. Attorney Fees

¶41   In September 2017, the court granted Atrium attorney fees related to

preparing for the evidentiary hearing on enforcement of the settlement agreement,

finding that Kazazian’s positions were substantially groundless and frivolous; it

instructed the parties to set a hearing regarding such fees to be held within sixteen

days. Pertinently, the court found that Kazazian had accepted revisions to the

agreement and her attempted repudiation was unacceptable because it was not

supported by any rational argument based on the law or the evidence.

Concordantly, the court denied Kazazian’s request for attorney fees because she’d

filed the majority of the 400 filings in the case, she’d likely contributed as much or

more to the time and expense of bringing the case to closure, and Atrium’s claims

were not frivolous or groundless.

¶42   After dilatory tactics relating to setting the attorney-fees hearing as directed

by the court (including several requests for clarification of orders), Kazazian

agreed to set the hearing for November 2017; she also requested that the court

order Atrium’s board members to appear in person at the hearing. The court

sustained Atrium’s objection, finding that Kazazian spent much of her briefing on

                                         24
the objection22 rearguing the case and that her prior cross-examination at the

May 25 evidentiary hearing was “prolix and repetitive.”             Kazazian again

requested clarification of the order. She then moved for recusal of the district court

judge, which the judge denied from the bench at the attorney-fees hearing. The

court awarded Atrium $3,920.

¶43   A few weeks after the hearing, Kazazian requested a satisfaction of

judgment related to the initial (late) $10,000 payment she had made to Atrium

pursuant to the settlement agreement; Atrium objected. Kazazian filed anew her

motion for the presiding judge to recuse and a motion for stay of the attorney fees

judgment. The court denied the motion to recuse. Later, Kazazian filed a motion

(which she then amended) to compel Atrium to file satisfactions of judgment in

the case for the payments she’d made of $3,920 and $10,000. The court denied the

motion, finding that because Kazazian hadn’t complied with the settlement

agreement, Atrium still had a valid claim for $50,000. Over two months later,

Kazazian moved for relief from and amendment of the order, which the court

summarily denied. Kazazian then appealed the orders denying her motions for

22 The court noted that the objection had been filed a day late and exceeded the

court’s specified page length.

                                         25
relief and amendment.23 Atrium moved to dismiss the appeal because the time to

appeal had long expired. Kazazian failed to respond, so the court of appeals

granted the motion to dismiss and denied Kazazian’s motion to reconsider.

               5. Appeal of Evidentiary Hearing Findings24

¶44   Returning to July 2017, Kazazian proceeded with an appeal of the district

court’s order enforcing the settlement agreement. After the matter was dismissed

and reinstated, and following three extensions of time for Kazazian to file the

opening brief, Kazazian moved to stay execution of the judgment and the

proceedings below pending the appeal, which the court denied.           After an

additional request for an extension of time, Kazazian filed her amended opening

brief in March 2018. After the court of appeals struck the brief for noncompliance

with the formatting rules, Kazazian amended it again and refiled it later that

month. After receiving another extension of time, Kazazian filed her reply brief.

Following oral argument, a division of the court of appeals affirmed the district

court’s judgment in November 2018.

23 Court of Appeals Case No. 20CA1402.

24 Court of Appeals Case No. 17CA1247.

                                       26
          6. Second Lawsuit Against Atrium and Its Attorneys25

¶45   In early December 2019, Kazazian filed a second lawsuit against Weigler’s

law firm, two attorneys at the firm including Weigler, a second law firm, the

president of Atrium, Atrium, and four Atrium board members. Kazazian sought

relief against the defendants for breach of their duties to NHK and Atrium (of

which NHK was a member), sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and

requested attorney fees and costs.     After briefing, the attorneys and board

members were dismissed as parties. Atrium filed its answer to the complaint,

along with counterclaims for judicial foreclosure, breach of the settlement

agreement, breach of declaration, and abuse of process. Kazazian filed motions to

compel Atrium to permit her to inspect corporate records, which after full briefing

the court denied.

¶46   In the course of the proceedings, Kazazian subpoenaed GHP’s attorney,

Bohn, for a deposition; subpoenaed GHP to attend and produce documents at the

deposition; and identified Atrium’s counsel as a will-call witness at trial. After

two motions to quash and a motion to strike, respectively, and full briefing (with

extensions of time for Kazazian), the court granted the motions. The court found

that Kazazian had subpoenaed Bohn only to depose him about matters that had

25 Jefferson County District Court Case No. 19CV31784.

                                        27
nothing to do with her lawsuit against Atrium and that it was “patently evident”

that the topics to be covered in the GHP subpoena had “nothing to do with this

case.”26 The court found that Kazazian issued the subpoena to GHP in bad faith

and for improper purposes, that it was frivolous and vexatious, and that it

unnecessarily expanded the proceedings.27 Therefore, the court awarded attorney

fees to GHP related to the motion to quash.

¶47   Atrium subpoenaed Kazazian for a deposition, which caused Kazazian to

file multiple pleadings, including a motion for a protective order, a motion to

strike, and several requested extensions. After a hearing, the court ordered that

the deposition take place.    Despite the order, on the eve of the scheduled

deposition, Kazazian requested a second hearing, where the court affirmed that

the deposition must take place and ruled that Kazazian had willfully disobeyed

the court’s order by making an intentional effort to prevent her deposition.

26 At this point, GHP was drawn into the Atrium litigation by Kazazian’s bad-faith

subpoena of GHP. Because the subpoena emanated from the Atrium litigation,
we have kept the facts related to this GHP subpoena, motion to quash, and
resulting attorney-fees litigation within this Atrium Part I.B, despite the prior
Part I.A devoted to GHP.
27 Despite this ruling, Kazazian would later attempt to subpoena GHP and its

insurer again, this time to attend her contempt hearing resulting from unpaid
attorney fees awarded as a sanction for the previous improper subpoena of GHP.
See infra Part I.B.7.

                                       28
Atrium filed a motion under C.R.C.P. 37(b)(2) for relief due to Kazazian’s failure

to comply with the court’s order regarding the deposition and proposed sanctions,

which Kazazian moved to strike. A deposition was finally held, but Kazazian

walked out mid-questioning.

¶48   As a matter of course, Kazazian filed documents into the case as

confidential, which the court later found was groundless, causing the court to

strike the designation.28   Eventually, after multiple discovery disputes and

hearings,29 each party moved for summary judgment, with Kazazian filing three

separate motions. The matter was set for a six-day trial for early October 2021.

¶49   In the weeks leading up to the trial, Kazazian filed several motions

regarding evidence, regarding absentee testimony, to strike the proposed trial

management order, and for extensions of time to reply to Defendants’ responses

to her summary judgment motions. The court granted the extensions, but it noted

28 Despite this first infraction, Kazazian continued to improperly use the
“confidential” designation, which caused Atrium to file a motion, requiring the
court to again order that certain documents were not confidential. The second
time, Kazazian filed an emergency motion to vacate the court’s order regarding
Atrium’s challenges to the confidentiality of documents. The court ultimately
ordered that the confidential designation be stricken, again.
29 Kazazian consistently expanded the timelines of the hearings, which caused the

court to intervene to order the hearings be set; Kazazian subsequently filed
motions to have even those hearings reset.

                                        29
that “the level and amount of activity/filings in this case is the antithesis of

‘proportionality’ relative to the needs of this litigation.” The court then entered

summary judgment in favor of Atrium on most issues. After the ruling, all that

remained was one of Kazazian’s claims (for breach of fiduciary duty) and two of

Atrium’s counterclaims (for breach of the settlement agreement and breach of

declaration). At Kazazian’s request, the court vacated the trial and ordered it to

be reset within five months. Later, Kazazian moved to vacate the summary

judgment order; the court denied the motion.

¶50   In October 2021, upon learning that the sale of the condo was set to close the

following day, Atrium filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction to

have the proceeds attach and be deposited into the court registry. The court

ordered that a hearing on the injunction be set.30 After a motion to vacate the

order, the court held a hearing on December 10, at which it granted the preliminary

injunction.31 The court also held a hearing (which Kazazian sought to continue, to

no avail) on attorney fees on December 15, where it granted GHP attorney fees

30 In its order, the court noted that despite Kazazian indicating that she could not

perform her duties in a court of law or participate in legal proceedings for one
month due to medical reasons, she had filed no less than five pleadings in
that period.
31 Kazazian filed an emergency motion to continue the hearing and to withdraw

as counsel, which the court denied.

                                        30
related to the motion to quash the subpoena of GHP, including fees related to the

hearing. Time ran out, causing the court to continue the remaining two issues (a

motion for sanctions and a discovery violation motion) to a new January 20

hearing. The next day, the court granted GHP’s request for $21,270 in costs.

Kazazian appealed.32

¶51   The day before the January 20 hearing, Kazazian moved for a continuance

and clarification. The morning of the hearing (which was set for the afternoon),

the court denied Kazazian’s request for a continuance and reiterated prior

instructions regarding the hearing. Less than an hour later, Kazazian filed a

forthwith motion for change of judge. At the noon hearing, the court heard

argument on the motion to recuse and then reset the hearing for February 8 to rule

on the motion to recuse and to hear the two original remaining issues.

¶52   On Saturday, February 5, Kazazian filed another emergency motion for a

continuance and clarification.    The court issued an order the morning of

February 8 stating that it would rule on the prior motion to recuse at the hearing

and that all parties were required to attend. Kazazian emailed Atrium’s counsel

to inform him that she would not attend; Atrium’s counsel attended and notified

32 See infra Part I.B.9 regarding Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA218.

                                       31
the judge of Kazazian’s email. When Kazazian did not appear at the hearing, the

court attempted to contact her by phone and email. After a brief recess and no

response from Kazazian, her email to opposing counsel was read into the record,

and the court found that Kazazian voluntarily chose not to attend the ordered

hearing. The court then denied the motion to recuse, denied the motions to

continue and for clarification, and heard argument on the motion for sanctions.

The court found that Kazazian’s failure to comply with court orders in the case

was significant and commented that the case should be ready for trial after three

years, but Kazazian had yet to even disclose the members of NHK and neither she

nor NHK had been properly deposed. As sanction for the willful failure to comply

with its orders to sit for depositions, the court found it proper to strike both

Kazazian’s remaining claim in the case and her answer as it pertained to Atrium’s

remaining counterclaims.

¶53   Subsequently, Atrium moved for default judgment related to the hearing

order. The court granted Kazazian two extensions of time to respond, but she

never did, so the court first entered default judgment on two of Atrium’s

counterclaims and later entered default on the third. The court ordered that

Atrium could file a motion for attorney fees with the court through

post-judgment relief.

                                       32
                            7. Contempt Citations

¶54   After not receiving payment for the judgment related to its attorney fees for

the motion to quash in the Atrium litigation, GHP moved for contempt against

Kazazian. Kazazian received extensions of time to respond, but she failed to do

so; she also filed motions that were denied, and ultimately failed to appear at the

advisement hearing. After receiving briefing on whether an arrest warrant should

issue, the court ordered that personal service of the contempt citation and motion

must precede any further proceedings on contempt.33 After a new contempt

citation was issued, Kazazian moved to vacate the judgment and contempt citation

(denied), then once again failed to appear, causing a warrant to issue. The next

day, Kazazian appeared, and the court stayed the warrant until the advisement

hearing could be held.     After advisement, the contempt hearing was set for

February 2023.

¶55   In November 2022, Kazazian moved for satisfaction of judgment,34 which

the court would later deny. In December 2022 and January 2023, Kazazian filed

33 On August 10, 2022, Kazazian filed a C.A.R. 21 petition with this court (22SA259)

on behalf of herself and NHK, seeking mandamus to require the district court to
reverse its orders imposing sanctions, awarding attorney fees, and denying the
motion to recuse. That petition was denied.
34 Kazazian filed the motion as “[unopposed]” despite GHP being “categorically

opposed.”

                                        33
no less than five motions with the court requesting clarification of orders,

amending prior motions, seeking to strike GHP filings and prior court orders,

purporting to “amend” the court’s prior orders, requesting an extension of time,

and asking the court to require GHP to attend and testify at the contempt hearing.

The day before the February contempt hearing, Kazazian filed yet another

forthwith motion for change of judge, causing the contempt hearing to be reset to

April 28.35 In a thorough order, the judge denied the motion to recuse. Kazazian

then moved to have the garnishment stricken and again moved for entry of

satisfaction of judgment. The court denied the motions, finding that Kazazian had

not satisfied the judgment.

¶56   Two days prior to the contempt hearing, Kazazian moved for a continuance,

citing transportation issues. The court granted the continuance and reset the

hearing for June. Finally, in early June, Kazazian hand-delivered a check to GHP,

which GHP cashed, satisfying the judgment for attorney fees. At that point, the

court vacated the contempt hearing. The court also granted Atrium’s motion for

attorney fees against Kazazian, awarding Atrium $148,967.86 in attorney fees and

35 On the same day, Kazazian filed a C.A.R. 21 petition with this court (23SA59),

along with an emergency motion seeking a stay of the contempt proceedings. Both
the petition and the motion were denied.

                                       34
$3,189.09 in costs; the court found that because NHK hadn’t filed a response, the

motion had been confessed.

                 8. Appeal of Summary Judgment Order36

¶57   In November 2021, while the district court case was still pending, Kazazian

appealed the district court’s summary judgment order in favor of Atrium, its order

quashing the Atrium subpoena, and other related issues.         Atrium moved to

dismiss on the basis that there was no final judgment in the case and the appeal

was brought simply to delay the underlying action. Despite requesting three

extensions of time, Kazazian never responded to the motion to dismiss, and the

court of appeals dismissed Kazazian’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable order;

it also awarded attorney fees and costs to Atrium, to be determined by the district

court. Kazazian’s petition for rehearing was denied.

              9. Appeal of Attorney Fees Awarded to GHP37

¶58   In February 2022, Kazazian, on behalf of herself and NHK, filed a notice,

and then an amended notice, of appeal of several district court orders related to

GHP’s motion to quash in the Atrium litigation, despite the motion to quash being

36 Court of Appeals Case No. 21CA1771, appealing from Jefferson County District

Court Case No. 19CV31784.
37 Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA218, appealing from Jefferson County District

Court Case No. 19CV31784.

                                        35
a non-final, unappealable order. The court of appeals initially dismissed the case

for lack of jurisdiction, but after Kazazian petitioned for rehearing, it reinstated

the appeal. Six months after her initial notice of appeal, and before she filed her

opening brief, Kazazian twice moved to supplement the record, moved to

disqualify GHP’s attorneys based on the previously rejected argument about

GHP’s 2018 dissolution, requested clarification and reconsideration of orders, filed

three motions regarding e-filing, moved for a limited remand and stay of the

briefing schedule, and requested four extensions of time to file her opening brief.

¶59   Kazazian filed her opening brief in November 2022, but the court struck it

for noncompliance with C.A.R. 28 and 32 and ordered that it be refiled. The day

before the amended brief was due, Kazazian sought a fifth extension of time. The

court denied the motion and ordered that the appeal be dismissed with prejudice.

Kazazian then moved to petition for rehearing out of time, which was denied.

After receiving two extensions of time from this court, Kazazian filed a petition for

writ of certiorari, which was denied.38

38 Supreme Court Case No. 23SC106.

                                          36
               10. Appeal of Entry of Default Judgment and
                           Discovery Sanctions39

¶60   In June 2022, Kazazian appealed the district court’s orders entering default

judgment for GHP, imposing discovery sanctions, and other issues. After Atrium

moved to dismiss, the court of appeals issued an order to show cause why the

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment, noting

that (1) damages hadn’t yet been determined, and (2) Kazazian hadn’t moved to

set aside the default judgment in the district court. After Kazazian’s response, the

court granted Atrium’s motion to dismiss and awarded Atrium attorney fees, to

be determined by the district court. After an extension of time, Kazazian filed a

petition for rehearing, which was denied. Kazazian then turned to this court,

seeking and receiving three extensions of time to file a petition for writ of

certiorari. Kazazian finally filed her petition after a show cause order issued

requiring Kazazian to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

file a petition.40 In May 2023, certiorari review was denied.

39 Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA1070, appealing from Jefferson County District

Court Case No. 19CV31784.
40 Supreme Court Case No. 22SC893.

                                        37
           11. Appeal of Entry of Default Judgment for Atrium
                            on Counterclaims41

¶61   In August 2022, Kazazian filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s order

entering default judgment for Atrium on its counterclaims, imposing sanctions,

and denying her motion for change of judge, among other issues she’d brought in

other appeals. Atrium moved to dismiss on the basis that there was no final

judgment in the case, and the appeal was brought simply to delay the underlying

action. The court granted Atrium’s motion to dismiss and awarded attorney fees

and costs to Atrium, to be determined by the district court.

         12. Second Appeal of Default Judgment, Sanctions, and
                      Denial of Motion to Recuse42

¶62   In January 2023, Kazazian filed an appeal on behalf of herself regarding the

district court’s default judgment order for GHP and the orders granting discovery

sanctions, denying sanctions against GHP’s counsel, and denying the motion for

change of judge. On the same day, Kazazian filed a separate appeal on behalf of

NHK, appealing the district court’s order entering default judgment on behalf of

Atrium on its third counterclaim, an issue regarding the summary judgment order,

41 Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA1381, appealing from Jefferson County District

Court Case No. 19CV31784.
42 Court of Appeals Case Nos. 23CA145 and 23CA146 (consolidated into 23CA145).

                                         38
and orders denying sanctions against Atrium’s counsel and denying the motion

for change of judge. The court sua sponte consolidated the appeals. After several

motions and a court order requiring that NHK be represented by an attorney, a

lawyer entered her appearance for NHK and filed NHK’s opening brief in

November 2023.

                              II. C.A.R. 21 Petition

¶63   In June 2023, Petitioners asked us to exercise our original jurisdiction under

C.A.R. 21. Unlike the typical Rule 21 petition, they don’t seek relief from a specific

underlying trial court order. Instead, they argue that absent our express and broad

prohibition, and without the supervision of a licensed attorney, Kazazian’s

penchant for filing new and frivolous lawsuits and appeals will continue

unabated. Accordingly, they ask us to enjoin Kazazian “from ever proceeding pro

se as a proponent of any claim or other request for relief, including the filing of

papers and making court appearances, whether acting individually or on behalf

of a trust, company or other entity, in any pending or future litigation in the state

courts of Colorado.” After we issued a rule to show cause why Petitioners’

requested relief should not be granted, Atrium filed an amicus brief

supplementing the history of Kazazian’s past actions and supporting Petitioners’

requested relief. After a request for extension of time, Kazazian filed her answer

brief, supplemented later by an amended answer brief.

                                         39
                                      III. Analysis

¶64      While extraordinary, it is wholly within this court’s discretion to grant relief

under our original jurisdiction. C.A.R. 21(a)(1). Through C.A.R. 21’s narrow

scope, the relief we grant is limited in purpose and availability. Winninger v.

Kirchner, 2021 CO 47, ¶ 17, 488 P.3d 1091, 1095. In limited instances, we exercise

our original jurisdiction to enjoin an individual from proceeding in Colorado

courts without an attorney. See, e.g., Francis, ¶ 53, 494 P.3d at 608 (collecting cases).

Our power to provide this extraordinary remedy is rooted in article VI, section 2(1)

of the Colorado Constitution, which imbues us with general superintending

powers over all state courts, including the power to stop abuse of the judicial

process. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Boulder Cnty. v. Barday, 594 P.2d 1057, 1058–59

(Colo. 1979); Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Weld Cnty. v. Howard, 640 P.2d 1128, 1129 (Colo.

1982).      We proceed by first addressing Kazazian’s preliminary standing

argument,43 and then turn to the merits of Petitioners’ request for an injunction.

43 Kazazian also states in her answer that pro se access to Colorado courts is a right

that cannot be lost without notice and a hearing but provides no legal support and
makes no argument in the body of her answer regarding this statement. Thus, we
decline to substantively address that statement.

                                            40
                                   A. Standing

¶65   As a threshold matter, Kazazian argues that Petitioners lack standing to

request relief.44 This court has inherent power and an obligation to protect the

lower courts from conduct that impairs the normal functioning of the state’s

judicial processes. Colo. Const. art. VI, § 2(1) (bestowing “general superintending

control over all inferior courts”); Dunlap, 623 P.2d at 410 (finding “duty and the

power to protect courts, citizens, and opposing parties from the deleterious impact

of repetitive, unfounded pro se litigation.”).      Our exercise of power under

article VI, section 2(1) is not dependent on the actions or entitlement of a private

party to injunctive relief. See Dunlap, 623 P.2d at 410 (“[A]n injunction . . . is

appropriate when the procedure followed by private litigants conflicts with

important public rights and . . . resists other means of control.”). “Our power to

issue such an injunction is ‘firmly established’ when it is ‘necessary to stop abuse

of the judicial process.’” Francis, ¶ 53, 494 P.3d at 608 (quoting Howard, 640 P.2d

at 1129). Any other reality would jeopardize the independence and constitutional

44 Primarily, Kazazian reargues that GHP cannot file a lawsuit as a dissolved

corporation. As lower courts have explained to Kazazian, the law is clear that
GHP may bring and defend suits in its name, despite being dissolved. Colorado
statutes provide plainly that “[d]issolution of a corporation does not . . . [p]revent
commencement of a proceeding by or against the corporation in its name.”
§ 7-114-105(2)(e).

                                         41
role of this court. Thus, the standing of the parties has no bearing on our duty to

issue an injunction necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the judiciary.

                             B. Extraordinary Relief

¶66    “Every person has an undisputed right of access to the Colorado courts . . .

but this right may not be abused. . . . [and must] yield to the principle that ‘right

and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.’”            Dunlap,

623 P.2d at 410 (quoting Colo. Const. art. II, § 6). This principle is compromised

when a pro se party “pursues myriad claims without regard to relevant rules of

procedural and substantive law.” Winslow, 862 P.2d at 923. This is because

“opposing litigants must bear the expense of defending against meritless claims,”

and the public pays the price of increased court costs, crowded dockets, and

unreasonable delay and confusion resulting from the disruption of proper judicial

administration. Id. When a pro se litigant hampers the efficient administration of

justice to an intolerable degree, it is our duty to stop the abuse with an injunction.

Barday, 594 P.2d at 1059; Howard, 640 P.2d at 1129. What constitutes “intolerable”

is fact-based and determined on a case-by-case basis.

¶67   For example, in the past, we have issued injunctions when a pro se party

(1) files a multitude of meritless claims, Shotkin v. Kaplan, 180 P.2d 1021, 1022 (Colo.

1947); (2) files multiple, successive, duplicative claims, Howard, 640 P.2d at 1130;

(3) uses a method of procedure that strains judicial resources, Dunlap, 623 P.2d at

                                          42
410–11; or (4) brings claims that appear to be aimed at harassing opposing parties,

Barday, 594 P.2d at 1058. The facts before us show that Kazazian has engaged in

not just one, but all, of these intolerable abuses.

                               1. Meritless Claims

¶68   In Shotkin, we considered a similar scenario involving a pro se litigant who

filed a “multitude of cases” in which he routinely sued “lawyers who have

opposed him in his fruitless attempt in earlier litigation, and sometimes those

judges who have found it compatible with their judgment to rule adversely to

him.” 180 P.2d at 1021–22. We recognized that such behavior “interferes with the

functioning of all the courts within the jurisdiction of Colorado, including ours,

and materially impedes judicial progress.” Id. at 1022. We noted that because

Shotkin wasn’t a licensed attorney, he wasn’t bound to “observe rules calculated

to promote orderly and just administration of justice,” and that he in fact violated

those rules “at pleasure.” Id. We further noted that were Shotkin licensed, “our

disciplinary authority would enable us . . . to meet the situation.” Id. We thus held

that “only by the requirement that he employ counsel may we return to the normal

consideration of duties to which the people have called us,” and that “in the

interest of discharging our never ending judicial duties, we are justified in

withholding from him the right to appear in advocacy of his own writs of error.”

Id. Accordingly, we ordered that (1) whenever Shotkin “appears as plaintiff in

                                          43
error, or plaintiff, he should promptly retain counsel,” and (2) he “shall desist from

instituting actions in Colorado state trial courts” without being represented. Id.

¶69   Here, Kazazian has similarly brought a multitude of meritless arguments in

three different counties and has appealed the same on numerous occasions. For

example, regarding the GHP litigation:

      • breach of settlement agreement lawsuit—found meritless, substantially
        groundless, and frivolous;

      • summary judgment appeal—found meritless, substantially groundless,
        and frivolous;

      • first attorney fees appeal—attorney fees affirmed because her claim was
        “invented . . . ‘out of whole cloth,’” “incredible,” “nothing more than an
        ‘attempt at revisionist history,’” and “the very epitome of prosecuting
        an action in bad faith”;

      • attorney fee award appeal motion to strike and motion to
        dismiss—frivolous;

      • attorney fee award first motion to compel satisfaction of judgment and
        motion to strike—denied for “lacking merit”;

      • attorney fees award second motion to compel satisfaction of
        judgment—denied for lacking merit; and

      • attorney fees motion to modify—“untimely and meritless.”

¶70   And regarding the Atrium litigation:

      • appeal of interlocutory orders—denied for lack of jurisdiction;

      • enforcement of settlement agreement case—positions were
        substantially groundless and frivolous;

      • subpoena on GHP for records—“issued for improper purposes, was
        frivolous, vexatious, and unnecessarily expanded the scope of the[]

                                         44
         proceedings . . . [because it] lacked substantial justification and
         constituted an abuse of discovery”;

      • filing documents into the second case as confidential—stricken twice by
        the court as improper use of the designation;

      • appeal of order granting motion to quash—dismissed again for lack
        of jurisdiction;

      • appeal of default judgment for GHP, discovery sanctions,
        etc.—dismissed again for lack of a final, appealable judgment, attorney
        fees awarded to GHP; and

      • appeal of default judgment for Atrium on counterclaims—dismissed
        again for lack of a final, appealable judgment, attorney fees awarded
        to Atrium.

¶71   We count at least fourteen times that Colorado courts have found

Kazazian’s arguments, actions, or claims to be meritless. We conclude that this

“multitude of meritless” instances rise to the level of being intolerable.

                2. Multiple, Successive, Duplicative Claims

¶72   In Howard, the petitioner sought an injunction to prevent a disbarred

attorney from appearing “before any state court or administrative agency,”

claiming that he’d “filed a multiplicity of cases of a duplicative nature causing the

judicial process to be needlessly impeded.” 640 P.2d at 1128. In finding “ample

justification for an injunction,” we noted that Howard had “initiated no fewer than

fourteen actions” since his disbarment. Id. at 1129. We stated that, although our

constitution “guarantees to every person the right of access to courts of justice,”

we nevertheless had the “power to enjoin a person from proceeding pro se in any

                                         45
litigation in state courts and administrative agencies” where doing so was

“necessary to stop abuse of the judicial process.” Id. And because Howard’s

“constant and duplicitous pro se complaints . . . result[ed] in an unwarranted

burden on the judicial process and [we]re prejudicial to the public interest,” we

issued the requested injunction. Id. at 1130.

¶73   Here, beyond filing at least one duplicative lawsuit (her second suit against

Atrium and its attorneys), Kazazian has inundated the district courts in individual

cases with repetitive filings. For example, Kazazian has repetitively filed motions

or notices for satisfaction of judgment in the case concerning Atrium, to the point

that a district court judge prohibited her from filing any more unilateral

satisfactions of judgment, under penalty of contempt. The incessant level of filing

by Kazazian led that same district court judge to later order that Kazazian’s

opposers no longer needed to respond to Kazazian’s numerous motions. As a

second example, separate from her motions for satisfaction of judgment are

Kazazian’s duplicative subpoenas of GHP’s representatives, GHP’s insurer, and

GHP’s attorneys. Wholly irrelevant to the litigation, and as lower courts have

held, the subpoenas can only be seen as “an effort to expand the dispute[s]” from

one case to the next unrelated proceeding. We conclude that these constant,

duplicative, expansive actions by Kazazian are also intolerable.

                                         46
                            3. Method of Procedure

¶74   In Dunlap, pro se plaintiffs engaged in a “method of procedure” whereby

they “expand[ed] joinder of defendants to include lawyers, judges, and other

parties perceived as opposing them in . . . earlier litigation.” 623 P.2d at 410. We

held that such behavior “threatens a serious strain on the judicial resources of this

state.” Id. Furthermore, we rejected the argument that “private and individual

remedies” would suffice to cure this abuse of process; instead, we recognized that

injunctions barring pro se plaintiffs from bringing lawsuits without representation

are proper “when the procedure followed by private litigants conflicts with

important public rights and interests and when it resists other means of control.”

Id. Specifically, we noted that when a self-represented plaintiff “fails to comply

with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law,” the plaintiff’s “fellow

citizens . . . must meet the expense of his meritless suits as a result of increased

court costs, crowded dockets, and the unreasonable delay and confusion that

accompanies a disruption of proper judicial administration.” Id. at 411. Thus, we

enjoined the Dunlaps “from further representing themselves as plaintiffs in any

present or future actions related to or arising out of their involvement with public

officers or public employees.” Id. Here, Kazazian groundlessly filed claims

against not only her opposers but her own attorneys, the attorneys representing

her attorneys, and opposing parties’ attorneys.

                                         47
¶75     Beyond suing improper parties, Kazazian also abused legal procedure in

terms of time, filing innumerable motions to continue and motions for extension

of time.      In a vacuum, such motions are generally permissible, but when

considered in the context of Kazazian’s relentless dilatory tactics, they rise to the

level of intolerable abuse of the court system. The occasions where Kazazian

timely filed without an extension are grossly outnumbered by the opposite.

Kazazian frequently requested second and third extensions of time to file

responsive pleadings, motions, discovery responses, and opening briefs. In many

instances, even after receiving the extension, Kazazian would either file late or fail

to file at all.

¶76     This strategy of protraction caught the attention of some courts, with more

than one commenting that the case’s lengthy timeline was outstandingly

disproportionate to its simplicity. As the district court in the Atrium case noted

when denying one of Kazazian’s motions to continue a hearing, “[i]t is in the

interest of not only the litigants but also other litigants in this court and to the general

public that, at some reasonable point, there should be an end to litigation.”

(Emphasis added.) We conclude that, through her frivolous lawsuits against

distant parties and her excessive expansions of case timelines, Kazazian has

abused the judicial process and caused serious strain on judicial resources,

meaning her method of procedure has also been intolerable.

                                            48
             4. Bringing Claims for the Purpose of Harassment

¶77   Finally, in Barday, a pro se plaintiff filed “countless motions and

counter-motions” and “compiled a voluminous collection of . . . bald allegations”

(including against lawyers and judges) that were “repetitive and factually

unsupported.” 594 P.2d at 1058, 1059. We determined that the plaintiff either

(1) “ha[d] no legal claim and [was] persisting in his lawsuits merely to harass . . .

those who have found it in their judgment to oppose him,” or (2) “need[ed] an

attorney to structure his claims for him.” Id. at 1059.

¶78   Similarly here, either Kazazian needs an attorney to help her discern if her

claims are meritorious, or she persists merely to harass her opposers. The facts

appear to support the latter. The initial case against GHP arose out of Kazazian’s

divorce proceeding. In addition to suing GHP, Kazazian sued GHP’s attorneys,

her own divorce attorney, her post-dissolution attorneys, and her ex-husband’s

divorce attorney. Likewise, related to the matter concerning Atrium, Kazazian

sued Atrium’s attorneys. In one instance, the case was dismissed for Kazazian’s

failure to prosecute, in another, the parties jointly dismissed the case, and in yet

another, the case is ongoing to this day due to Kazazian’s method of protraction.

Kazazian’s retaliatory piling on appears to only be for the purpose of harassment.

Separately, Kazazian formed a corporation in the name of GHP, and then under

that guise, attempted to terminate the real GHP’s counsel, recover money she had

                                         49
paid towards the real GHP’s judgment against her, and then initiated a lawsuit

against the real GHP’s attorneys for the same reason. Apart from being a fraud on

the court, which led to Kazazian’s disbarment, this particularly egregious abuse of

the judicial system certainly rises to the level of harassment.

¶79   “[T]he right of access to courts does not include the right to impede the

normal functioning of judicial processes. Nor does it include the right to abuse

judicial processes in order to harass others.” Id. Not only does Kazazian deprive

other members of the public of precious judicial resources, but she also hampers

her own causes. We conclude that Kazazian’s purposes, whether for harassment,

or simply requiring licensed legal advice, are intolerable because of the strain they

place on the Colorado courts.

                                         ***

¶80   Having considered our past cases where an injunction was appropriate and

finding that Kazazian’s actions are similarly intolerable, we are compelled to make

the rule to show cause absolute and enjoin Kazazian from proceeding pro se. In

continuing down her litigation path, Kazazian has disregarded warnings,

sanctions, attorney fee awards, and even her own disbarment. We have a duty to

protect the courts and the public from further abuse. Kazazian’s access to the

courts is not denied—she may still proceed through an attorney of her

                                         50
choice—and thus, this injunction does not infringe on Kazazian’s constitutional

rights. See Francis, ¶ 73, 494 P.3d at 610–11.

                                  IV. Conclusion

¶81   The rule to show cause is made absolute for the foregoing reasons. Kazazian

is hereby enjoined, whether acting individually or on behalf of another entity, from

proceeding pro se as a proponent of a claim (e.g., as plaintiff, third-party claimant,

cross-claimant, or counter-claimant) in any present or future litigation in the state

courts of Colorado. The chief judge of each judicial district shall notify the clerk’s

office(s) in that judge’s district about this opinion and instruct the staff to reject

any filing from Kazazian that violates this injunction.

PER CURIAM.

                                          51