UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Title: ARTHUR LOPEZ v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jazmin Dorado Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): Order to Show Cause Why Arthur Lopez Should Not Be Declared a Vexatious Litigant
I. LEGAL STANDARD The All Writs Act, coupled with federal courts “inherent power” to “regulate the activities of abusive litigants,” authorizes district courts to enter pre-filing orders limiting the right of vexatious litigants to file legal actions. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, this authority exists independently of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to decide the merits of the underlying claims. See id. at 1146-47; see also Peabody v. United States, 263 F. App’x 560 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming vexatious litigant order entered after complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). While courts’ authority to enter such orders should be exercised “rarely,” “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. The Ninth Circuit requires four factors (“the De Long factors”) be proven before a litigant may be declared vexatious: (1) he/she must be given adequate notice and a chance to oppose a restrictive pre-filing order before it is entered; (2) the district court must present an adequate record for review by listing the case filings that support its order; (3) the district court must further make substantive findings as to the frivolous nature of the filings; and CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 2
(4) the order must be narrowly tailored to remedy only the litigant’s particular abuses. Id. at 1147-49. In considering whether De Long factors three and four are met, the Ninth Circuit has also directed district courts to consider: “the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits”; “the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?”; “whether the litigant is represented by counsel”; “whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel”; and “whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.” Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986)); see also Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-62 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that Safir “provides a helpful framework for applying the two substantive factors (factors three and four) of [the De Long] standard”). “To decide whether the litigant’s [prior] actions are frivolous or harassing,” under the third factor from De Long, “the district court must look at both the number and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims. … An injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Frivolous litigation is not limited to cases in which a legal claim is entirely without merit. It is also frivolous for a claimant who has some measure of a legitimate claim to … assert[] facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false.” Id. at 1060-61. Claims might also be deemed vexatious if the plaintiff “repeatedly assert[s] the same claims in a slightly altered guise,” “use[s] the courts to block and hinder various business transactions of the defendants,” and/or uses “senseless and unduly burdensome” litigation tactics. Safir, 792 F.2d at 24. It appears that a vexatious litigant order need not rely only on prior lawsuits that were expressly dismissed as frivolous. For example, in Molski, the Ninth Circuit upheld a vexatious litigant order that was based on a finding that the litigant had “harassed defendants into cash settlements….” 500 F.3d at 1059-60; see also id. at 1052 (noting that “Molski had tried on the merits only one of his approximately 400 suits and had settled all the others”). Additionally, the Central District of California’s Local Rules provide in relevant part: CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 3
On its own motion or on motion of a party, after opportunity to be heard, the Court may, at any time, order a party to give security in such amount as the Court determines to be appropriate to secure the payment of any costs, sanctions or other amounts which may be awarded against a vexatious litigant, and may make such other orders as are appropriate to control the conduct of a vexatious litigant. Such orders may include, without limitation, a directive to the Clerk not to accept further filings from the litigant without payment of normal filing fees and/or without written authorization from a judge of the Court or a Magistrate Judge, issued upon such showing of the evidence supporting the claim as the judge may require. … Any [such] order … shall be based on a finding that the litigant to whom the order is issued has abused the Court’s process and is likely to continue such abuse, unless protective measures are taken. Local Rules 83-8.2, 83-8.3. II. DISCUSSION A. Notice and a Chance to Respond Regarding De Long factor one, responding to this Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) is Mr. Lopez’s opportunity to be heard and oppose entry of a restrictive, pre-filing order. B. Frivolous Nature of the Prior Actions Regarding De Long factors two and three, the following filings by Mr. Lopez in this Court appear to be frivolous and/or abusive: Case No. Title Summary of Allegations Disposition 1 13-0897 Lopez v. In June 2012, a private In forma pauperis (“IFP”) Our Lady school did not admit his application was denied and Queen of children because of action dismissed because a Angels discrimination on the basis non-attorney guardian for Catholic of sex, religion, race, and minors must have counsel School disability, as well as in under Local Rule 83-2.2.1. retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Lopez admitted that the school cited class size and his CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Title: ARTHUR LOPEZ v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jazmin Dorado Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): Order to Show Cause Why Arthur Lopez Should Not Be Declared a Vexatious Litigant
I. LEGAL STANDARD The All Writs Act, coupled with federal courts “inherent power” to “regulate the activities of abusive litigants,” authorizes district courts to enter pre-filing orders limiting the right of vexatious litigants to file legal actions. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, this authority exists independently of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to decide the merits of the underlying claims. See id. at 1146-47; see also Peabody v. United States, 263 F. App’x 560 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming vexatious litigant order entered after complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). While courts’ authority to enter such orders should be exercised “rarely,” “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. The Ninth Circuit requires four factors (“the De Long factors”) be proven before a litigant may be declared vexatious: (1) he/she must be given adequate notice and a chance to oppose a restrictive pre-filing order before it is entered; (2) the district court must present an adequate record for review by listing the case filings that support its order; (3) the district court must further make substantive findings as to the frivolous nature of the filings; and CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 2
(4) the order must be narrowly tailored to remedy only the litigant’s particular abuses. Id. at 1147-49. In considering whether De Long factors three and four are met, the Ninth Circuit has also directed district courts to consider: “the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits”; “the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?”; “whether the litigant is represented by counsel”; “whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel”; and “whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.” Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986)); see also Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-62 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that Safir “provides a helpful framework for applying the two substantive factors (factors three and four) of [the De Long] standard”). “To decide whether the litigant’s [prior] actions are frivolous or harassing,” under the third factor from De Long, “the district court must look at both the number and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims. … An injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Frivolous litigation is not limited to cases in which a legal claim is entirely without merit. It is also frivolous for a claimant who has some measure of a legitimate claim to … assert[] facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false.” Id. at 1060-61. Claims might also be deemed vexatious if the plaintiff “repeatedly assert[s] the same claims in a slightly altered guise,” “use[s] the courts to block and hinder various business transactions of the defendants,” and/or uses “senseless and unduly burdensome” litigation tactics. Safir, 792 F.2d at 24. It appears that a vexatious litigant order need not rely only on prior lawsuits that were expressly dismissed as frivolous. For example, in Molski, the Ninth Circuit upheld a vexatious litigant order that was based on a finding that the litigant had “harassed defendants into cash settlements….” 500 F.3d at 1059-60; see also id. at 1052 (noting that “Molski had tried on the merits only one of his approximately 400 suits and had settled all the others”). Additionally, the Central District of California’s Local Rules provide in relevant part: CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 3
On its own motion or on motion of a party, after opportunity to be heard, the Court may, at any time, order a party to give security in such amount as the Court determines to be appropriate to secure the payment of any costs, sanctions or other amounts which may be awarded against a vexatious litigant, and may make such other orders as are appropriate to control the conduct of a vexatious litigant. Such orders may include, without limitation, a directive to the Clerk not to accept further filings from the litigant without payment of normal filing fees and/or without written authorization from a judge of the Court or a Magistrate Judge, issued upon such showing of the evidence supporting the claim as the judge may require. … Any [such] order … shall be based on a finding that the litigant to whom the order is issued has abused the Court’s process and is likely to continue such abuse, unless protective measures are taken. Local Rules 83-8.2, 83-8.3. II. DISCUSSION A. Notice and a Chance to Respond Regarding De Long factor one, responding to this Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) is Mr. Lopez’s opportunity to be heard and oppose entry of a restrictive, pre-filing order. B. Frivolous Nature of the Prior Actions Regarding De Long factors two and three, the following filings by Mr. Lopez in this Court appear to be frivolous and/or abusive: Case No. Title Summary of Allegations Disposition 1 13-0897 Lopez v. In June 2012, a private In forma pauperis (“IFP”) Our Lady school did not admit his application was denied and Queen of children because of action dismissed because a Angels discrimination on the basis non-attorney guardian for Catholic of sex, religion, race, and minors must have counsel School disability, as well as in under Local Rule 83-2.2.1. retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Lopez admitted that the school cited class size and his CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 4
failure to timely pay tuition as reasons for the non- admission. 2 13-1445 Lopez v. During the 2012-13 school IFP was denied based on an Newport year, public school staff, inadequate showing of Elementary PTA members, and “local indigency. School real estate agencies with … ties to” the school discriminated against Lopez and his family on the basis of sex, race, and religion in various ways, e.g., disciplining Lopez’s son; failing to comply with a doctor’s note about his son; acting “hostile” towards Lopez; failing to hire any full-time male teachers; and choosing not to rent property to Lopez’s family. 3 13-1800 Lopez v. Same allegations as in case Action was dismissed for Newport no. 13-1445, realleged in a lack of prosecution after Elementary new action where Lopez about 9 months passed School paid the filing fee. without service on defendants; dismissal was affirmed on appeal. 4 14-1785 Lopez v. Hotel denied Lopez’s family IFP was denied and the Newport housing after they “had action dismissed because the Dunes resided [there] for claims were too vague to Waterfront approximately 1 year under establish federal jurisdiction Resort constant discrimination” on or state a valid claim for the basis of sex, race, relief. religion and speech. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 5
5 15-1354 Lopez v. Between 2007 and 2012, the Defendants’ motion to MUFG defendant banks stole dismiss was granted because Union Bank Lopez’s trade secrets related most of the claims were to his auto-finance business; barred by res judicata declined his business loan (Orange County Superior application; and foreclosed Court case no. 30-2012- on his home. These actions 00565003) and the other were fraudulent, violated allegations failed to a state various consumer protection claim; dismissal affirmed on statutes, were in retaliation appeal. for his reporting of the bank’s illegal practices, and were racially discriminatory. 6 16-2267 Lopez v. Initial complaint alleged that After he was given several Newport police failed to act on chances to amend, IFP status Beach Police “repeated requests” to press was denied and the action Dept. charges against his ex-wife dismissed for failure to state for domestic violence for a a claim and based on 2015 incident in which immunity; the court noted Lopez was charged with that Lopez had “regularly – domestic violence. He and generally without alleged that this was success – pursued similar discriminatory on the basis civil rights actions against of sex, race, and religion. local agencies in this Court,” He asked the court to award listing his prior actions. He him custody of his children, filed multiple interlocutory dismiss all state criminal appeals, which where charges, and award dismissed. damages. Later iterations of the complaint also alleged that police had improperly allowed his ex-wife to possess his Lexus and complained about the bail set after his 2015 arrest. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 6
7 17-0297 Lopez v. In February 2015, police Summary judgment was Costa Mesa conducted an illegal traffic granted for defendants Police Dept. stop and search and because the undisputed discriminated against him evidence showed that Lopez based on sex, religion, and made an illegal turn over a race. median and that his car had been unregistered and underinsured for nearly a year. Lopez filed multiple improper interlocutory appeals; his final appeal remains pending (case no. 18-55520). 8 17-0488 Lopez v. In 2016, police arrested him On IFP screening: claims Newport for violating a restraining against city and police Beach Police order, which was a “bogus department were dismissed Dept. charge created … with the for failure to allege policy or assistance” of his ex-wife. custom; discrimination He brought “claims of claims were dismissed as malicious prosecution / false conclusory; and malicious arrest / false imprisonment” prosecution and false arrest and discrimination on the claims against investigating basis of sex, race, and officer were allowed to religion. proceed. Summary judgment was granted for the officer because there was probable cause for arrest and prosecution. Lopez filed multiple appeals from non-appealable orders; his final appeal remains pending (case no. 18-56452). Lopez was ordered to pay sanctions for failing to appear at a status conference. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 7
9 17-0496 Lopez v. In January 2012, tow Dismissed (a) as time-barred Tustin Police company put diesel fuel in with no equitable tolling for Dept. Plaintiff’s gas car, damaging 2013 state court action on the it; police officers who called same facts that was the tow company and dismissed for lack of company employees prosecution (Orange County discriminated against him on Superior Court case no. 30- the basis of sex, race, and 2013-00622173); and (b) for religion; this and other failure to state a claim negative interactions with because no facts supported police showed broad Lopez’s claim that conspiracy against him by defendants acted with senior officials at various discriminatory intent; appeal Orange County police was found frivolous. agencies. 10 17-0752 Lopez v. Police discriminated against IFP denied and action Irvine Police him on the basis of sex, race, dismissed because Dept. and religion when they: (a) allegations of (a) removed his son from his discrimination in 2015 car during an April 2011 incident were conclusory; traffic stop, citing the lack of and (b) claims based on 2011 a booster seat; and (b) in incident were untimely; November 2015, refused to Court noted Lopez’s give Lopez back a car that “numerous similar frivolous had been improperly given complaints filed in recent to his ex-wife (see case no. months in this district.” 16-2267). Multiple appeals were found frivolous. 11 17-0845 Lopez v. Police and school district IFP denied and action Newport conspired to discriminate dismissed after leave to Beach Police against him on the basis of amend, because Lopez Dept. sex, race, and religion and “fail[ed] to allege any violate his “First, Fourth, understandable set of facts Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth showing plausible Amendment rights.” In constitutional violation or 2015, school refused to enroll his son after his CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 8
disruptive (according to discrimination”; appeal was school) conversation with found frivolous. police in school parking lot about discrimination against him and his son; police did not act on his complaints and helped school “cover up.” 12 17-1466 Lopez v. Same as 15-1354 (between Dismissed on defendants’ MUFG 2007 and 2012, bank stole motion because claims were Union Bank trade secrets, declined barred by res judicata; business loan application, affirmed on appeal. and foreclosed on home). 13 17-1470 Lopez v. Plaintiff fell at federal Summary judgment for United courthouse and brought defendants because Lopez States negligence claim under the did not rebut defense expert’s Federal Tort Claims Act. opinion that court walkway was not dangerous; appeal pending (case no. 19-55162). 14 17-2038 Lopez v. State, governor, county, and IFP denied and action California county employee violated dismissed for failure to state his First, Fourth, Fifth, a claim because complaint Eighth and Fourteenth was a “rambling, Amendment rights in unintelligible rant” against various ways, e.g.: EEOC government officials; court declined to pursue his noted that Lopez’s “nearly 20 religious discrimination actions raise issue of whether claims against his employer; he is a vexatious litigant or state failed to provide him approaching threshold.” with qualified pro bono Appeal was found frivolous. counsel for his civil rights cases; state court judge would not let him discharge his public defender in a 2015 criminal case; every local government entity he has CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 9
interacted with (e.g., DMV, child support office, and probation office) has conspired to violate his civil rights. 15 17-2163 Lopez v. Same as 17-0297 (in IFP denied and action Costa Mesa February 2015, police dismissed as untimely; Police Dept. conducted an illegal traffic Lopez’s claim that he stop and search and “‘recently discovered’ discriminated against him alleged collusion by senior based on his sex, religion, police personnel in Orange and race) County” was “belied by [his] minimal and conclusory allegations”; appeal was found frivolous. 16 17-2165 Lopez v. Same as 17-0488 (in 2016, IFP denied and action Newport police wrongfully harassed dismissed for failure to state Beach Police and arrested him after ex- a claim and “[b]ecause of the Dept. wife accused him of frequency and nature of violating restraining order); [Lopez’s] frivolous actions in alleging that city and county this district”; court noted that “systematically [and] allegations were “rambling,” routinely train” their “largely unintelligible,” and employees to discriminate stated “no coherent civil against Latinos, Catholics, rights violation[s] beyond and males. that which the Court green- lighted against one individual officer … in the 17-0488 action”; appeal was found frivolous. 17 17-2379 Lopez v. In November 2017, police Summary judgment for Corona unlawfully towed his car defendants because car was Police Dept. when it was parked on the not properly registered and street near his house. was blocking neighbor’s driveway; Lopez ordered to pay Rule 11 sanctions “for CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 10
knowingly submitting a materially doctored document,” i.e., a DMV receipt, to try to prove the car was properly registered. Appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. 18 18-0032 Lopez v. Police, city, ticket IFP denied and action Santa Ana processing center, and dismissed under Rooker- Police Dept. judicial council violated due Feldman doctrine and process and equal protection because civil rights claims by only permitting were “unintelligible.” challenges to traffic citations via mail and improperly dismissing and/or processing his civil action in state court. 19 18-0093 Lopez v. Irvine Co. entities refused to Defendants’ motion to The Irvine rent him an apartment dismiss was granted; Co. because of his race, which constitutional claim was violated his constitutional dismissed because rights and the federal Fair defendants were not state Housing Act, and was an actors; Fair Housing Act unfair business practice claim was dismissed as time- under California law. barred; court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claim; appeal was found frivolous. 20 18-1144 In re Lopez Appeal from bankruptcy IFP denied and appeal court orders entered in 2011 dismissed as untimely and and 2012, which Lopez frivolous; appeal to 9th contended violated his equal Circuit also dismissed as protection and due process frivolous rights CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 11
21 18-1145 In re Lopez Same Dismissed as untimely; appeal to 9th Circuit also dismissed as frivolous 22 18-1154 In re Lopez Same Dismissed as untimely; appeal to 9th Circuit also dismissed as frivolous 23 18-1240 In re Lopez Same Dismissed as untimely; appeal to 9th Circuit also dismissed as frivolous 24 19-1143 Lopez v. Civil rights claims against IFP denied and action Superior the state and the local state dismissed after Lopez was Court trial court, as well as a given a chance to amend; multitude of former allegations were employers, state agencies, “unintelligible and frivolous” family members, law and/or barred by Eleventh enforcement agencies, and Amendment immunity. national political figures. 25 19-1816 Lopez v. Claims under various federal IFP denied and action HSBC Bank, consumer protection statutes dismissed for failure to state et al. against banks who a claim because Lopez failed foreclosed on his mother’s to allege facts showing he home in 2018, and against was a borrower on the loan former FBI director James and because the allegations Comey, who Lopez alleged against Comey were failed to investigate Lopez’s “fanciful.” civil rights complaints
This list contains multiple cases against judges, courts, and prosecutors who are immune from suit. It contains multiple cases against government entities and/or employees alleging that they violated Mr. Lopez’s civil rights by doing nothing more than failing to act on his complaints or siding with his ex-wife. In multiple cases, Mr. Lopez alleged that banks, school staff, and/or police officers took actions that otherwise appear lawful because they were motived to discriminate against men, Hispanics, and/or Catholics, without alleging any facts suggesting a discriminatory motive. The cases describe implausible conspiracies, assert time-barred claims, CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 12
repeat previously dismissed claims, seek exaggerated damages, and are replete with procedurally improper and/or frivolous appeals. C. Narrowly Tailored Remedy Regarding De Long factor four, previous attempts to sanction Mr. Lopez—by ordering him to pay costs under Rule 11, dismissing his actions, and noting the many unmeritorious cases he had filed in this district—appear to have had no deterrent effect. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1065-66 (holding that, before entering a vexatious litigant order, courts should “consider[] whether imposing sanctions such as costs or fees” would be “an adequate deterrent”). Moreover, it appears that an appropriate pre-filing order may be crafted that is narrowly tailored to Mr. Lopez’s vexatious behavior. The Court’s proposed pre-filing order would require Mr. Lopez to obtain pre-filing approval from a District Judge of this Court prior to filing any civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that: (1) brings any claim against any public entity or public employee (including but not limited to schools, police officers, police departments, cities, counties, courts, judges, and judicial employees); (2) alleges that any person or entity (whether public or private) discriminated against Mr. Lopez or his family members on the basis of sex, race, or religion; or (3) brings any claim against MUFG Union Bank, N.A., MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation, Union Bank, N.A., or Union BanCal Corporation (i.e., the defendants named in case nos. 15-1354 and 17-1466). See, e.g., Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061 (approving order requiring vexatious litigant to obtain preapproval for “actions under Title III of the ADA in the Central District of California”); Endsley v. California ex rel. Brown, 627 F. App’x 644, 645 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming prefiling order that covered “any civil complaint, habeas petition, or IFP application” but striking down provision deeming permission denied if not granted within 30 days); Boustred v. Gov’t, No. 08- 00546, 2008 WL 4287570, at *3, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111090, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2008) (requiring vexatious litigant to “obtain leave of court before filing any further suits alleging any ‘civil rights’ claims or conspiracy claims involving parties that he named in this current case or [two specific cases] previously filed in this court”) // // CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020 Page 13
III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before February 18, 2020, Mr. Lopez shall show cause in writing, if any he has, why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant and why the Court should not enter the pre-filing order described above.
Initials of Deputy Clerk JD