Freeze v. McDermott

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 ERIC STEPHEN FREEZE, CASE NO. C22-1844JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 DON MCDERMOTT, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Eric Stephen Freeze’s motion in limine. (Mot. 16 (Dkt. # 38); see also Mem. (Dkt. # 39) (purporting to “set forth the reasons for the relief 17 sought” in the motion in limine).) Mr. Freeze asks the court to: (1) admit “evidence of 18 [f]raud upon this [c]ourt by” Erik Pedersen, counsel for Defendants Donald McDermott, 19 Lisa Janicki, and Skagit County (collectively, the “Skagit Defendants”); (2) preclude Mr. 20 Pedersen from “introducing any evidence or testimony” regarding the original complaint 21 in this matter; (3) strike all “notice and motions submitted by” Mr. Pedersen; and 22 // 1 (4) deny Mr. Pedersen’s “request for [a m]otion to dismiss.” (Mot. at 2 (capitalization 2 omitted).)

3 On May 23, 2023, the court granted the Skagit Defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. 4 Freeze’s amended complaint, and Defendants the Ann G. Freeze Revocable Trust, the 5 Ronald L. Freeze Revocable Trust, Elizabeth Gallagher, and Paul Taylor’s (collectively, 6 the “Trust Defendants”) joinder thereto. (See 5/23/23 Order (Dkt. # 27).) The court 7 subsequently denied Mr. Freeze’s two motions for reconsideration of that order. (See 8 6/14/23 Order (Dkt. # 34); 6/16/23 Order (Dkt. # 36).) The only remaining Defendant is

9 Jose T. Acuna, who has not yet appeared in this matter. (See generally Dkt.) 10 Mr. Freeze’s motion in limine focuses entirely on evidence relating to his 11 allegations that Mr. Pedersen has committed fraud upon the court or otherwise engaged in 12 misconduct in representing the Skagit Defendants. (See generally Mot.; Mem.) 13 However, because the Skagit Defendants have been dismissed from this case (see 5/23/23

14 Order), Mr. Pedersen is no longer involved in this action. Accordingly, the court 15 DENIES Mr. Freeze’s motion in limine (Dkt. # 38).1 16 The court also notes that Mr. Freeze has already filed five motions challenging 17 Mr. Pedersen’s conduct and representation of the Skagit Defendants, all of which have 18 been denied. (See, e.g., 4/27/2023 Order (Dkt. # 17) (denying Mr. Freeze’s two motions

19 to disqualify Mr. Pedersen); 5/23/23 Order at 3-4 (denying Mr. Freeze’s motion to strike 20

21 1 To the extent Mr. Freeze again seeks reconsideration of the court’s order granting the Skagit Defendants’ motion to dismiss, that motion is denied for the reasons set forth in the 22 court’s earlier orders. (See 6/14/23 Order; 6/16/23 Order.) 1 arguments made by Mr. Pedersen); 6/14/23 Order (denying motion for reconsideration 2 premised in part on Mr. Pedersen’s alleged fraud); 6/16/23 Order (same).) The court has

3 the inherent authority to both enjoin Mr. Freeze’s future filings and to issue sanctions if 4 he continues to abuse the judicial process by acting “vexatiously, wantonly, or with 5 oppressive motives.” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 6 Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980)); see, e.g., Clinton v. United 7 States, 297 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1961) (discussing authority to enjoin future filings (citing 8 28 U.S.C. § 1651)); Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 11(c) (“An attorney or party who

9 without just cause . . . presents to the court unnecessary motions or unwarranted 10 opposition to motions, . . . or who otherwise so multiplies or obstructs the proceedings in 11 a case may, in addition to or in lieu of the sanctions and penalties provided elsewhere in 12 these rules, be required by the court to satisfy personally such excess costs and may be 13 subject to such other sanctions as the court may deem appropriate.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11

14 (allowing for sanctions where “a filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without 15 factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose”). Accordingly, although the 16 court has given Mr. Freeze some leeway because he is proceeding pro se, any future 17 motions challenging Mr. Pedersen’s conduct or representation of the Skagit Defendants 18 may be a basis for sanctions. See Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994)

19 (noting that a court “cannot . . . decline to impose a sanction, where a violation has 20 arguably occurred, simply because plaintiff is proceeding pro se”). 21 // 22 // 1 Dated this 27th day of June, 2023. 2 A 3 4 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22