UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
NANCY ALANIS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. SA-21-CV-01261-JKP
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCI- ATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS OF OCTO- BER 1, 2006 SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC TRUST 2006-NC3 MORTAGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-NC3; MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, PC, AS DEBT COLLECTOR; MARK D. CRONEN- WETT, RICHARD DWAYNE DAN- NER,
Defendants.
O R D E R Before the Court is Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. ECF Nos. 10, 13. This Court granted Plaintiff Nancy Alanis’s Motion for Leave to File a Re- sponse to this Motion. ECF No. 15 and Text Order granting. Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to De- clare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant is GRANTED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Wells Fargo Defendants request this Court declare Alanis a vexatious litigant based upon an extensive litigation history involving the same factual dispute and factual foundation and against the same defendants. To prevent future harassing and abusive litigation, Wells Fargo Bank requests this Court enjoin Alanis from filing any additional suit unless granted written au- thorization from this Court. In her Response, Alanis “incorporates her First Amended Complaint herein as though repeated in full verbatim.” ECF No. 15. On this same date, this Court denied Alanis’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. DISCUSSION
Legal Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, to prevail on a motion for sanctions, the movant must first serve the motion on the offending party and give the nonmovant 21 days to cure or withdraw the offending pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); Elliott v. Tifton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995). This “safe harbor” provision is mandatory and provides the nonmoving party an opportunity to respond and explain themselves. Id. In addition to the authority granted by Federal Rule 11, the federal courts also have the inherent authority to take steps to protect the integrity of the court from vexatious litigants. Courts must exercise this inherent power “to protect the efficient and orderly administration of
justice and ... to command respect for the court’s orders, judgments, procedures, and authori- ty.” In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993)(per curiam) (citing Roadway Express, Inc., v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980)). Included in this inherent power is “the power to levy sanc- tions in response to abusive litigation practices.” Id. However, “because of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). Therefore, “the threshold for the use of inherent power sanctions is high,” and the Court must find bad faith before using its inherent powers to impose sanc- tions. Chaves v. M/V Medina Star, 47 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1995); Elliott, 64 F.3d at 217. An appropriate exercise of a court’s inherent powers is to issue pre-filing injunctions against vexatious litigants. Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 2008). This sanction of a pre-filing injunction may be appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993). Pro se litigants have “no license to harass others, clog the judi-
cial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Hous., N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). A court may impose a prefiling sanc- tion on a vexatious litigant upon a finding of such abuse; however, the injunction “must be tai- lored to protect the courts and innocent parties, while preserving the legitimate rights of liti- gants.” Id. at 360. Before issuing a pre-filing injunction, a court must weigh all the relevant cir- cumstances, including: “(1) the party’s history of litigation, in particular whether he has filed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) whether the party had a good faith basis for pur- suing the litigation, or simply intended to harass; (3) the extent of the burden on the courts and other parties resulting from the party’s filings; and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions.”
Baum, 513 F.3d at 189; Crear v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 491 F. Supp. 3d 207, 218–19 (N.D. Tex. 2020). In punishing abusive or harassing misbehavior, a court should impose no more than the minimal sanctions necessary to correct the offending conduct, and the imposition of sanctions must not result in total, or even significant, preclusion of access to the courts.” In re First City Bancocorporation of Tex. Inc., 282 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 2002); Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 882 n.23 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc). Analysis The Wells Fargo Defendants complied with the safe harbor provision, as they served this Motion on Alanis on January 19, 2022. On the 14th day after service, February 2, 2022, Alanis filed a Motion for Leave to File a Response, which incorporated her response, and which this Court granted. Alanis also filed a Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint that same day. This Court denied that Motion for Leave for the reasons stated in the Court’s contemporaneous Memorandum Opinion and Order issued this same day. In her Response to this Motion and in her Motion for Leave to File Amended Com-
plaint, Alanis did not cure or withdraw her pleading, but instead sought to make additional har- assing statements and allegations in her proposed 226 page Amended Complaint. ECF No. 17. For this reason, the Court concludes the Wells Fargo Defendants satisfied the safe harbor provi- sion, and Alanis has had ample opportunity to respond and explain herself. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); Elliott, 64 F.3d at 216. This case arises out of a foreclosure dispute between Plaintiff Nancy Alanis and De- fendants pertaining to Alanis’s mortgage loan secured by residential real property. The follow- ing chart provides a recitation of the protracted litigation history based upon this foreclosure dispute1:
INITIATION PARTIES COURT NATURE OF DISPOSITION DATE PROCEEDING February 22, Nancy Alanis v. Trustee, 45th District Lawsuit challenging March 3, 2016, 2011 Mackie Wolf Zientz & Court of Trustee’s right to fore- judgment entered ju- Mann PC (“Mackie Bexar Coun- close and asserting dicially foreclosed Wolf”), Ocwen and ty, Texas; claims for fraud, civil on the Deed of Trust, HomEq Servicing Cor- Case No. conspiracy, violations of and ordered the Bex- poration 2011-CI- Section 12.002 of the ar County Sheriff 02839 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
NANCY ALANIS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. SA-21-CV-01261-JKP
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCI- ATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS OF OCTO- BER 1, 2006 SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC TRUST 2006-NC3 MORTAGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-NC3; MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, PC, AS DEBT COLLECTOR; MARK D. CRONEN- WETT, RICHARD DWAYNE DAN- NER,
Defendants.
O R D E R Before the Court is Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. ECF Nos. 10, 13. This Court granted Plaintiff Nancy Alanis’s Motion for Leave to File a Re- sponse to this Motion. ECF No. 15 and Text Order granting. Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to De- clare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant is GRANTED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Wells Fargo Defendants request this Court declare Alanis a vexatious litigant based upon an extensive litigation history involving the same factual dispute and factual foundation and against the same defendants. To prevent future harassing and abusive litigation, Wells Fargo Bank requests this Court enjoin Alanis from filing any additional suit unless granted written au- thorization from this Court. In her Response, Alanis “incorporates her First Amended Complaint herein as though repeated in full verbatim.” ECF No. 15. On this same date, this Court denied Alanis’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. DISCUSSION
Legal Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, to prevail on a motion for sanctions, the movant must first serve the motion on the offending party and give the nonmovant 21 days to cure or withdraw the offending pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); Elliott v. Tifton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995). This “safe harbor” provision is mandatory and provides the nonmoving party an opportunity to respond and explain themselves. Id. In addition to the authority granted by Federal Rule 11, the federal courts also have the inherent authority to take steps to protect the integrity of the court from vexatious litigants. Courts must exercise this inherent power “to protect the efficient and orderly administration of
justice and ... to command respect for the court’s orders, judgments, procedures, and authori- ty.” In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993)(per curiam) (citing Roadway Express, Inc., v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980)). Included in this inherent power is “the power to levy sanc- tions in response to abusive litigation practices.” Id. However, “because of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). Therefore, “the threshold for the use of inherent power sanctions is high,” and the Court must find bad faith before using its inherent powers to impose sanc- tions. Chaves v. M/V Medina Star, 47 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1995); Elliott, 64 F.3d at 217. An appropriate exercise of a court’s inherent powers is to issue pre-filing injunctions against vexatious litigants. Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 2008). This sanction of a pre-filing injunction may be appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of submitting multiple frivolous claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-97 (5th Cir. 1993). Pro se litigants have “no license to harass others, clog the judi-
cial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Hous., N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). A court may impose a prefiling sanc- tion on a vexatious litigant upon a finding of such abuse; however, the injunction “must be tai- lored to protect the courts and innocent parties, while preserving the legitimate rights of liti- gants.” Id. at 360. Before issuing a pre-filing injunction, a court must weigh all the relevant cir- cumstances, including: “(1) the party’s history of litigation, in particular whether he has filed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) whether the party had a good faith basis for pur- suing the litigation, or simply intended to harass; (3) the extent of the burden on the courts and other parties resulting from the party’s filings; and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions.”
Baum, 513 F.3d at 189; Crear v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 491 F. Supp. 3d 207, 218–19 (N.D. Tex. 2020). In punishing abusive or harassing misbehavior, a court should impose no more than the minimal sanctions necessary to correct the offending conduct, and the imposition of sanctions must not result in total, or even significant, preclusion of access to the courts.” In re First City Bancocorporation of Tex. Inc., 282 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 2002); Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 882 n.23 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc). Analysis The Wells Fargo Defendants complied with the safe harbor provision, as they served this Motion on Alanis on January 19, 2022. On the 14th day after service, February 2, 2022, Alanis filed a Motion for Leave to File a Response, which incorporated her response, and which this Court granted. Alanis also filed a Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint that same day. This Court denied that Motion for Leave for the reasons stated in the Court’s contemporaneous Memorandum Opinion and Order issued this same day. In her Response to this Motion and in her Motion for Leave to File Amended Com-
plaint, Alanis did not cure or withdraw her pleading, but instead sought to make additional har- assing statements and allegations in her proposed 226 page Amended Complaint. ECF No. 17. For this reason, the Court concludes the Wells Fargo Defendants satisfied the safe harbor provi- sion, and Alanis has had ample opportunity to respond and explain herself. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); Elliott, 64 F.3d at 216. This case arises out of a foreclosure dispute between Plaintiff Nancy Alanis and De- fendants pertaining to Alanis’s mortgage loan secured by residential real property. The follow- ing chart provides a recitation of the protracted litigation history based upon this foreclosure dispute1:
INITIATION PARTIES COURT NATURE OF DISPOSITION DATE PROCEEDING February 22, Nancy Alanis v. Trustee, 45th District Lawsuit challenging March 3, 2016, 2011 Mackie Wolf Zientz & Court of Trustee’s right to fore- judgment entered ju- Mann PC (“Mackie Bexar Coun- close and asserting dicially foreclosed Wolf”), Ocwen and ty, Texas; claims for fraud, civil on the Deed of Trust, HomEq Servicing Cor- Case No. conspiracy, violations of and ordered the Bex- poration 2011-CI- Section 12.002 of the ar County Sheriff 02839 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. Department to con- CODE (“CPRC”), unjust duct a sale of the enrichment, trespass to Property (“2016 Fi- try title, intentional in- nal Judgment). fliction of emotional dis- tress, violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act, and declaratory judgment (“2011 Law- suit”).
1 This Chart was provided by Wells Fargo Bank in the Motion, and Alanis does not dispute it. Plaintiff proceeded to file Seven Amended Peti- tions. March 8, 2016 Nancy Alanis v. Trustee, 4th Court of Appeal of the 2016 Final April 4, 2018, Mackie Wolf, Ocwen and Appeals, Judgment Memorandum HomEq Servicing Corpora- Texas, San Opinion affirming tion Antonio; the 2016 Final Case No. 04- Judgment (“2018 16-00121 Court of Appeals Or- der). December 7, 2018, Mandate issued(“2011 Lawsuit Mandate). July 27, 2018 Nancy Alanis v. Trustee, Texas Su- Petition for Review of August 31, 2018, pe- Mackie Wolf, Ocwen and preme the 2016 Final Judgment tition for review de- HomEq Servicing Corpora- Court; Case nied (“2018 Denial tion No. 18-0617 of Petition for Re- view). November 30, 2018, motion for re- hearing denied (“2018 Supreme Court of Texas Order”). January 14, 2019 Trustee v. Nancy Alanis Bexar Coun- Eviction proceedings March 26, 2019, fi- ty Court at nal judgment for Law No. 10; possession in favor Case No. of Trustee (“Eviction 2019-CV- Judgment). 00584 June 24, 2019 Nancy Alanis v. Trustee 4th Court of Appeal of the Eviction June 15, 2021, Appeals, Judgment affirmed the Eviction Texas, San Judgment (“Eviction Antonio, Mandate). Case No. 04- 19-00461- CV February 8, 2021 Nancy Alanis v. Trustee Texas Su- Petition for Review of March 19, 2021, pe- preme affirmed Eviction tition for review de- Court; Case Judgment nied (“2021 Denial No. 20-0798 of Petition for Re- view). June 11, 2021 motion for re- hearing denied (“Denial of Motion for Rehearing). April 6, 2021 Nancy Alanis v. Trustee Texas Su- Petition for Writ of May 14, 2021, preme Mandamus denied (“Denial of Court; Case Petition for Writ of No. 21-0311 Mandamus). July 9, 2021, denied amend- ed motion for rehear- ing (“Denial of Mo- tion for Rehearing of Writ Denial). February 14, Nancy Alanis v. Trustee, 45th District Petition for Bill of Review August 2, 2019, or- 2019 Ocwen, Mackie Wolf Court of to collaterally attack and der disposing of all Bexar Coun- set aside the 2016 Final issues and all parties ty, Texas; Judgment. (“2019 Final Judg- Cause No. (“2019 Lawsuit”) ment). 2019-CI- 03042
October 28, 2019 Nancy Alanis v. Trustee, 4th Court of Appeal of the 2019 Final April 29, 2020, Ocwen, Mackie Wolf Appeals, Judgment. Memorandum Texas, San Opinion affirming Antonio, the 2019 Final Texas; Case Judgment, finding No. 04-19- that Plaintiff’s 00764-CV claims asserted in the 2019 Lawsuit were barred by res judicata (“2020 Court of Appeals Order). June 15, 2021, Mandate issued affirming the 2019 Final Judgment (“2019 Lawsuit Mandate). February 9, 2021 Nancy Alanis v. Trustee, Texas Petition for Review of March 12, 2021, Ocwen, Mackie Wolf Supreme the affirmed 2019 Final denied (“2021 Court, Case Judgment Denial of Petition for No. 20-0803 Review of the 2020 Court of Appeals Order). June 11, 2021 denied motion for rehearing (“2021 Denial of Rehearing Regarding the 2020 Court of Appeals Order).
April 30, 2021 Nancy Alanis v. Wells United States Lawsuit challenging August 17, 2021 Fargo, Trustee, Danner, District Trustee’s right to dismissal of all Mackie Wolf, Jeffrey A. Court for the foreclose and asserting claims with Hiller, Ocwen, Western claims for fraud, prejudice Cronenwett District of violation of RICO, Texas, San violation of civil Antonio, conspiracy, violation of Case No. Section 12.002 of the 5:21-cv- TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. 00433-DAE CODE (“CPRC”), violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, quiet title and declaratory judgment (“2021 Federal Action”). October 1, 2021 Nancy Alanis v. Wells 150th Judicial Lawsuit challenging December 30, 2021- Fargo, Trustee and Cronenwett District Trustee’s title and Court granted Court of standing to foreclose, Alanis’ notice of Bexar asserts claims for quiet nonsuit of claims County, title, trespass to title, without prejudice Texas; Cause fraud, tortious No. interference with a con- 2021CI20923 tract and declaratory judgment (“2021 State Court Action”) October 6, 2021 Nancy Alanis v Wells United States Lawsuit based on Cronen- October 8, 2021 Fargo, Trustee, and District wett’s representation of Cronenwett Court for the Ocwen Loan Servicing, Remanded to state Western LLC and Wells Fargo in court for lack of diver- District of previous lawsuits brought sity jurisdiction Texas, San by Alanis. Alanis alleged Antonio, Cronenwett “schemed” with Case No. Wells Fargo to obtain a 5:21-cv- March 3, 2016, foreclosure 00952-FB order in state court December 17, Nancy Alanis v. Wells United States Lawsuit challenging Current suit 2021 Fargo, Trustee, District Trustee’s standing to Cronenwett, Danner, Court for the foreclose, title, asserting Mackie Wolf Western claims for fraud, District of violation of Section Texas, San 12.002 of the CPRC, Antonio tortious interference with Division, a contract, trespass to try Case No. title, quiet title, 5:21-cv- conspiracy. Alanis also 01261 complains of damage and conduct related to the eviction and asserts claims for violation of due process, conversion and violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act.
Based upon this represented litigation history, and even just the litigation history in this federal court, Alanis’s lawsuits are duplicative, harassing, and burdensome to the Court and the parties who must defend against them. While at some point Alanis may have had a good faith basis to pursue legal action, these duplicative lawsuits based upon the same operative facts no longer have any good faith basis and are now based in bad faith. The Court finds alternative sanctions are not available or will be ineffective, and imposition of monetary sanctions or fines would not protect the defendants. Further, a Texas state court has also weighed these factors and designated Alanis to be a vexatious litigant pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Prac- tice and Remedies Code. Having considered the above, the Court believes the appropriate sanction here is to de- clare Nancy Alanis as a vexatious litigant and enjoin Nancy Alanis from filing any civil lawsuit in the Western District of Texas without first obtaining permission from a judge of the Western District of Texas. See Walters v. Tenant Background Search, No. 1:16-CV-1092-DAE-AWA, 2019 WL 4849204, at *4-6 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2019).
It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 17th day of February, 2022. O\apen DUK DAW U D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE