Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 7, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01585
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, Case No. 22-cv-01585-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 9 v. DEFENDANT ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM’S MOTION FOR PRE- 10 ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., FILLING ORDER AND ORDER FOR BOND; AND DECLARAING 11 Defendants. PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT 12 Docket No. 25 13 14 Defendant Alameda Health System (AHS) moved to declare Plaintiff Tatyana Drevaleva a 15 vexatious litigant, require her to obtain a pre-filing order before filing additional litigation or 16 motions, and require her to post a $50,000 bond before proceeding with litigation in the present 17 case. (Docket No. 25-3 (Proposed Order).) As Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed without 18 leave, the Court grants the first two requests and denies the third as moot. 19 A. Factual Background 20 AHS hired Plaintiff as a monitor technician in 2013. (Docket No. 1 at ¶ 6.) A few months 21 later, Drevaleva sent a letter to her manager questioning her employee status, unpaid shift 22 differentials, unpaid overtime, AHS’s failure to give work breaks, and the denial of her request for 23 union affiliation. (Id. at ¶ 31.) AHS subsequently terminated her. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Shortly 24 afterwards, Drevaleva filed unlawful retaliation and wage claims against AHS with DLSE. (Id. at 25 ¶ 44.) DLSE determined that AHS terminated Drevaleva for a non-discriminatory reason and that 26 she failed to show pretext. (Id. at ¶¶ 46, 47, 94.) 27 Since then, Drevaleva has brought dozens of cases against AHS and DIR/DLSE in state 1 also has sued a number of state and federal judges that found against her as well as counsel 2 representing AHS and DLSE. She is deemed a vexatious litigant by the California First District of 3 Appeal. See Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sys., No. A158862, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4 6321 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2020). 5 B. Legal Standard 6 Although pre-filing orders should rarely be filed, federal courts can “regulate the activities 7 of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under . . . appropriate 8 circumstances.” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (quotation marks 9 omitted). “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person 10 to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims 11 of other litigants.” Id. at 1148. Thus, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), “enjoining 12 litigants with abusive and lengthy [litigation] histories is one such . . . restriction’ that courts may 13 impose.” Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. Of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 14 De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147). Federal district courts also “have inherent power to require plaintiffs 15 to post security for costs.” Simulnet E. Assocs. v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574 16 (9th Cir. 1994). 17 “When district courts seek to impose pre-filing restrictions, they must: (1) give litigants 18 notice and an opportunity to oppose the order before it is entered; (2) compile an adequate record 19 for appellate review, including a listing of all the cases and motions that led the district court to 20 conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed; (3) make substantive findings of frivolousness 21 or harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as to closely fit the specific vice encountered.” 22 Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting 23 De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147–48). 24 C. Analysis 25 1. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard 26 AHS filed the motion for bond on May 6, 2022 and properly served Drevaleva. (Docket 27 No. 25.) Drevaleva opposed the motion on May 28, 2020. (Docket No. 37.) The Court has fully 1 2. Record for Review 2 Below is a listing of the cases that the Court has considered to conclude that a vexatious 3 litigant order is needed. Although this listing is not exhaustive, it already shows that Drevaleva’s 4 activities are both numerous and abusive. 5 Drevaleva’s cases against AHS and/or DIR or their personnel in federal courts: 6 • Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sys., Case No. 3:21-CV-03061, 2017 U.S. Dist. 7 LEXIS 40778 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 21, 2017) (dismissing complaint against DIR under 8 Eleventh Amendment), aff’d, No. 21-15460, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24429 (9th 9 Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (“[W]e conclude this appeal is frivolous.”). 10 • Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sys., No. 16-cv-07414-LB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11 105398 (N.D. Cal., July 7, 2017) (dismissing amended complaint against AHS and 12 DIR’s personnel), aff’d, 789 Fed.Appx. 51 (9th Cir. 2019), reh’g denied, No. 17- 13 16382, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS2054 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2020), cert. denied, 140 S. 14 Ct. 2780 (2020). 15 • Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sys., No. 17-16382, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 6208 (9th 16 Cir. Feb. 28, 2019), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2759 (2020) (denying emergency 17 motion to expedite time on appeal). 18 • Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sys., No. 3:21-CV-03061, slip op. at 2 (Apr. 30, 19 2021) (rejecting request to order AHS provide her with certain documents under 20 state law), aff’d, No. 21-15884, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24070 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 21 2021) (finding appeal frivolous). 22 • Drevaleva v. Dep’t of Indus. Rels. of Cal., No. 3:20-CV-03063, 2021 U.S. Dist. 23 LEXIS 146239 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021) (rejecting petition to order California 24 Labor Commissioner to take certain action under state law), aff’d, No. 21-16678, 25 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16422 (9th Cir. Jun. 14, 2022) (“[W]e conclude this appeal 26 is frivolous.”). 27 Drevaleva against AHS and/or DIR or their personnel in state courts: 1 courts. Those proceedings are summarized in the appeals court opinion declaring 2 her a vexatious litigant. See Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sys., No. A158862, 3 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6321 (Cal. App. Ct. Sept. 28, 2020). 4 • Drevaleva v. Harding, No. RG20061108, 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 14214 (Cal. 5 Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2021) (granting demurrer for Drevaleva’s former supervisor at 6 AHS). 7 Drevaleva against judges that have ruled against her regarding her suits against AHS or 8 DIR: 9 • Drevaleva v. Justices of the Cal. Court of Appeal, Nos. 20-cv-07017-EMC, 21-cv- 10 01664-EMC, 21-cv-02222-EMC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250819 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11 9, 2021) (denying requests to vacate state court rulings), aff’d, No. 21-15657, 2021 12 U.S. App. LEXIS 24426, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (“[W]e conclude this 13 appeal is frivolous.”). 14 • Drevaleva v. Beeler, No. 20-cv-00642-JD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253616 (N.D. 15 Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) (dismissing Drevaleva’s claims against Judge Beeler with 16 prejudice), aff’d, No. 20-17523, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11271 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 17 2021). 18 • In re Drevaleva, 826 Fed. Appx. 929 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (denying Drevaleva’s 19 petitions for writ of mandamus to vacate judgment in case No. 20-cv-00642-JD). 20 • Drevaleva v. Pollak, No. 21-cv-01664-EMC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83920 (N.D. 21 Cal. Apr. 22, 2021) (denying motion to vacate state court judgment), aff’d, No. 21- 22 15766, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24087 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021) (“[W]e conclude 23 this appeal is frivolous.”). 24 3. Substantive Findings 25 “[B]efore a district court issues a pre-filing injunction against a pro se litigant, it is 26 incumbent on the court to make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the 27 litigant’s actions.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 (internal quotations omitted). In evaluating this 1 whether it entailed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative suits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing 2 the litigation; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused 3 needless expense to other parties or posed an unnecessary burden on the courts; and (5) whether 4 other sanctions would adequately protect the courts and other parties. Molski v. Evergreen 5 Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 6 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986)). 7 As described above, many of the listed cases expressly found Drevaleva’s cases frivolous. 8 In her first lawsuit against AHS and DIR in the federal court, for example, the Court found her 9 claims “legally feckless” and revoked her in forma pauperis status for purposes of her appeal. See 10 Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sys., No. 16-cv-07414-LB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115180, at *1– 11 *3 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2017) (“The court has carefully reviewed its earlier analyses to try and find 12 something in the plaintiff’s case that shows a glimmer of legal viability. It could find nothing.”). 13 In this instant case, she asserts frivolous claims, including those under the Eighth and Thirteenth 14 Amendment. In other cases, Drevaleva has repeatedly submitted duplicative filings. After the 15 Ninth Circuit denied her appeal of her first federal case against AHS and DIR, for example, she 16 filed untimely petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sys., 17 No. 17-16382, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18010 (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2020). She then submitted 18 numerous requests for extension of time to file petition for rehearing en banc, and directed some 19 requests to Chief Judge not on the panel that decided the appeal. Id. 20 Drevaleva’s actions also show harassment. Besides frivolously filing suits against state 21 and federal court judges, she has filed suit against AHS’s attorneys in state court, and sought 22 criminal restraining orders against them. (Docket No. 25-2 Paquette Decl. at ¶ 6.) She also has 23 pending cases in this court against the attorneys for DIR and AHS. See Drevaleva v. Ng et al., No. 24 3:22-cv-01984-EMC (N.D. Cal.); Drevaleva v. Narayan Travelstead Prof. Law Corp. et al., No. 25 3:22-cv-02068-EMC (N.D. Cal.). 26 Drevaleva has caused needless expenses to at least AHS and posed an unnecessary burden 27 on the courts. AHS has incurred $259,185 in legal fees and related expenses of $8,572 associated 1 also burden the court. 2 Sanctions other than a pre-filing order is unlikely to adequately protect the Court and the 3 parties. Drevaleva’s repeated and excessive filings, including this instant proceeding, after being 4 declared a vexatious litigant in state court, compels the inference that other sanctions would be 5 insufficient. Drevaleva has not heeded warnings from various courts that her claims were 6 frivolous. She therefore is not likely to be deterred absent a strong sanction in this instance. 7 4. Narrowly Tailored Order 8 AHS’s proposed order would require Drevaleva to obtain a pre-filing order before pursuing 9 any litigation or filing any new motion. (Docket No. 25-3 (Proposed Order).) That is too broad. 10 See De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148 (finding pre-filing order preventing litigant from filing any suit in 11 particular court overbroad). Instead, the Court issues the following order: 12 Given Plaintiff’s continued filings against AHS and DIR (including DLSE), 13 the Court DECLARES Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and finds that a pre- 14 filing order is appropriate moving forward. Plaintiff is ORDERED to seek 15 pre-filing approval in this Court prior to filing cases or new motions in the 16 Northern District of California pro se against AHS and DIR (including 17 DLSE), or any of their employees, officers, agents, or counsel regarding 18 Plaintiff’s prior employment with AHS or regarding DIR/DLSE’s 19 adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims against AHS. 20 This order is narrowly tailored to the “group of defendants” Drevaleva has targeted and to 21 the “type[s] of claims [Drevaleva] ha[s] been filing vexatiously.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. The 22 order does not deny Drevaleva access to the courts generally, but only subjects her to an initial 23 screening. 24 This order disposes of Docket No. 25. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: July 7, 2022 27 ______________________________________