Jae S. Nah v. Andrew V. Jablon

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 30, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-06909
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:23-cv-06909-RGK-RAO Date November 30, 2023 Title Jae §. Nah v. Andrew V. Jabion et al.

Present: The Honorable R.GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Vexatious Litigant On August 22, 2023, Jae S. Nah (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On November 2, 2023, the Court dismissed the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice and ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 66.) On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff responded.! (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff argues that he should not be declared a vexatious litigant because: (1) the two prior federal cases were dismissed without prejudice, and he apparently meant to amend them but lost track of the deadlines; (2) he based the allegations on the “authentic factual evidence” of the underlying state court and infringement actions; and (3) he “never lied to any courts with bad faith.” (/d. at 3.) Plaintiff's arguments are unavailing. These arguments fail to rebut the reasoning set forth in the Court’s previous order explaining that his activities were numerous, abusive, frivolous, and harassing, and that Defendants’ proposed order is narrowly tailored. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the Court DECLARES Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. The Court further ORDERS that, prior to filing any future litigation against any of the named Defendants for claims arising out of, or related to, the State Court,” Removal,’ or Infringement Actions,* Plaintiff shall either:

! Plaintiff's response was eleven days tardy. Plaintiff explains that he was sick and never received an authenticated copy of the Court’s order via mail, and while he received an email notice from Defendants as a courtesy, he refused to act on it due to his apparent distrust of Defendants. While it is questionable whether these explanations truly excuse this delay, given Plaintiff's pro se status and the requirement that litigants be given notice and opportunity to oppose vexatious litigant orders, the Court considers Plaintiff's response. ? Royal Printex, Inc. v. LA Printex Industries, Inc. et al., Case No. BC 571555. 3 Royal Printex, Inc. v. LA Printex Industries, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02075-SVW-E (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015). 4 A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Roval Printex, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02343-DDP-FFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015). L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Royal Printex, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02347-ODW-VBK (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015). L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Did Fabric, Inc. et ail., Case No. 2:15-cv-02351-R-PJW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015). CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:23-cv-06909-RGK-RAO Date November 30, 2023 Title Jae §. Nah v. Andrew V. Jabion et al. 1. submit any proposed complaint for preapproval to the Court; or 2. have any such complaint signed and filed by a member of the Bar of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. cc: CV Intake/Case Opening

Initials of Preparer JRE/sf

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2