FILED AUG 14, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
JARED A. FRERICHS, ) No. 40552-4-III ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) VIRGINIA R. COOPER, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Respondent. )
FEARING, J. — Jared Frerichs files suit against his former wife, Virginia Cooper,
despite a superior court previously entering an order precluding suit without advance
approval from the court. Because Frerichs failed to obtain pre-suit authorization, we
affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the suit and grant Cooper reasonable attorney fees
and costs on appeal.
FACTS
The plaintiff Jared Frerichs and defendant Virginia Cooper are former husband
and wife.
In December 2018, officials detained plaintiff Jared Frerichs in a mental health
facility. During the commitment, law enforcement seized Frerichs’ firearms, which
remain in police custody today. During the 2020 marital dissolution action between
Frerichs and Virginia Cooper, the superior court entered a restraining order based on a
finding that Frerichs committed domestic abuse against Cooper. In 2021, the superior
court entered a domestic violence protection order against Frerichs. No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
On January 25, 2023, the superior court, pursuant to RCW 26.51.070(6), granted
Virginia Cooper an order to restrict abusive litigation prohibiting Jared Frerichs from
filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing any litigation against Cooper until January 12,
2029, without first obtaining approval from the court. When granting the order, the
superior court found that Frerichs pursued court actions primarily for the purpose of
harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with Cooper.
PROCEDURE
On September 18, 2023, Jared Frerichs filed this lawsuit against Virginia Cooper,
alleging that she, along with her legal team, conspired to violate his constitutional rights
by obtaining extreme risk protection orders that deprived him of his right to bear arms.
In his complaint, Frerichs sought a declaration that Cooper violated, (1) his constitutional
rights, (2) an order quashing a warrant presumably for his arrest, (3) damages for
emotional distress, and (4) reimbursement for the loss of his firearms and home. In
response to the complaint, Cooper filed the January 25, 2023, order to restrict abusive
litigation.
On December 29, 2023, Jared Frerichs moved for summary judgment. On March
4, 2024, he filed a barely legible handwritten declaration accusing Virginia Cooper’s
counsel of manipulating information. Frerichs cited his disqualification from the U.S.
Coast Guard Auxiliary as evidence of counsel’s and the court’s negative impact on his
2 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
life. Frerichs also filed a pleading entitled a “motion status sheet” that complained the
courts had failed to address multiple motions in various case numbers and alleged that
opposing counsel refused to respond to his interrogatories due to a preoccupation with
insignificant procedural matters. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 35.
On April 9, 2024, Virginia Cooper’s counsel submitted RCW 26.51.070 to the
court with an outline of the procedural requirements for individuals subject to abusive
litigation orders who seek to initiate new legal actions. On April 12, 2024, the superior
court denied Jared Frerichs’ summary judgment motion due to his failure to obtain pre-
filing permission under RCW 26.51.070(2) but stayed the order to allow him an
opportunity to comply.
On May 20, 2024, Jared Frerichs filed a declaration titled “Complaint History,” in
which he claimed to be a victim of domestic violence and accused Virginia Cooper of
repeatedly submitting false reports. CP at 66. Frerichs asserted that his firearm
possession posed no threat to anyone. He alleged that a “secret hearing” held on
December 19, 2018, before a Spokane County Superior Court Commissioner, led to the
issuance of an extreme risk protection order and the seizure of his firearms. CP at 67.
Frerichs also included a copy of an administrative complaint he filed with the Spokane
Police Department Internal Affairs Division that grieved that law enforcement targeted
3 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
him for personal and political reasons. Frerichs speculated that Cooper maintained a
romantic relationship with an SPD officer.
The superior court reviewed the case on June 12, 2024. Jared Frerichs failed to
appear. The court concluded this lawsuit constituted abusive litigation. The superior
court wrote:
Based on the laws of Washington and the persuasive authority of Federal and other jurisdictions, there is no basis in law for this action to be brought against Ms. Cooper, and this filing it is clearly being used as a mechanism of abusive litigation and domestic violence. This litigation is part of the pattern of abusive litigation and domestic violence directed at Ms. Cooper by Mr. Frerichs.
CP at 54. The superior court lifted the stay, dismissed the action with prejudice,
and awarded attorney fees to Virginia Cooper for responding to the lawsuit.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Abusive Litigation
On appeal, Jared Frerichs contends the superior court abused its discretion when
denying him authorization to sue Virginia Cooper. Frerichs erroneously argues that
Spokane County Superior Court lacks venue for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Frerichs then
oddly argues that the existence of federal jurisdiction renders his state court filing non-
abusive. He further asserts that the superior court erred when dismissing the suit because
4 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
his claims involve personal injury, defamation, reputational harm, and property loss.
Frerichs did not assign error to the sanctions imposed.
We review a trial court’s decision to restrict a litigant’s access to the courts for
abuse of discretion. Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wn. App. 641, 657, 196 P.3d 753 (2008). A
court abuses its discretion when its ruling rests on untenable grounds or is made for
untenable reasons. Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 46-47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997).
The superior court did not act unreasonably when it ruled that Jared Frerichs filed suit as
part of a broader pattern of abusive litigation rooted in domestic violence.
The Abusive Litigation Act (ALA) of 2020 authorizes trial courts to impose
prefiling restrictions on parties who engage in abusive litigation. RCW 26.51.020(1)(a)
considers “abusive litigation” as:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED AUG 14, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
JARED A. FRERICHS, ) No. 40552-4-III ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) VIRGINIA R. COOPER, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Respondent. )
FEARING, J. — Jared Frerichs files suit against his former wife, Virginia Cooper,
despite a superior court previously entering an order precluding suit without advance
approval from the court. Because Frerichs failed to obtain pre-suit authorization, we
affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the suit and grant Cooper reasonable attorney fees
and costs on appeal.
FACTS
The plaintiff Jared Frerichs and defendant Virginia Cooper are former husband
and wife.
In December 2018, officials detained plaintiff Jared Frerichs in a mental health
facility. During the commitment, law enforcement seized Frerichs’ firearms, which
remain in police custody today. During the 2020 marital dissolution action between
Frerichs and Virginia Cooper, the superior court entered a restraining order based on a
finding that Frerichs committed domestic abuse against Cooper. In 2021, the superior
court entered a domestic violence protection order against Frerichs. No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
On January 25, 2023, the superior court, pursuant to RCW 26.51.070(6), granted
Virginia Cooper an order to restrict abusive litigation prohibiting Jared Frerichs from
filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing any litigation against Cooper until January 12,
2029, without first obtaining approval from the court. When granting the order, the
superior court found that Frerichs pursued court actions primarily for the purpose of
harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with Cooper.
PROCEDURE
On September 18, 2023, Jared Frerichs filed this lawsuit against Virginia Cooper,
alleging that she, along with her legal team, conspired to violate his constitutional rights
by obtaining extreme risk protection orders that deprived him of his right to bear arms.
In his complaint, Frerichs sought a declaration that Cooper violated, (1) his constitutional
rights, (2) an order quashing a warrant presumably for his arrest, (3) damages for
emotional distress, and (4) reimbursement for the loss of his firearms and home. In
response to the complaint, Cooper filed the January 25, 2023, order to restrict abusive
litigation.
On December 29, 2023, Jared Frerichs moved for summary judgment. On March
4, 2024, he filed a barely legible handwritten declaration accusing Virginia Cooper’s
counsel of manipulating information. Frerichs cited his disqualification from the U.S.
Coast Guard Auxiliary as evidence of counsel’s and the court’s negative impact on his
2 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
life. Frerichs also filed a pleading entitled a “motion status sheet” that complained the
courts had failed to address multiple motions in various case numbers and alleged that
opposing counsel refused to respond to his interrogatories due to a preoccupation with
insignificant procedural matters. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 35.
On April 9, 2024, Virginia Cooper’s counsel submitted RCW 26.51.070 to the
court with an outline of the procedural requirements for individuals subject to abusive
litigation orders who seek to initiate new legal actions. On April 12, 2024, the superior
court denied Jared Frerichs’ summary judgment motion due to his failure to obtain pre-
filing permission under RCW 26.51.070(2) but stayed the order to allow him an
opportunity to comply.
On May 20, 2024, Jared Frerichs filed a declaration titled “Complaint History,” in
which he claimed to be a victim of domestic violence and accused Virginia Cooper of
repeatedly submitting false reports. CP at 66. Frerichs asserted that his firearm
possession posed no threat to anyone. He alleged that a “secret hearing” held on
December 19, 2018, before a Spokane County Superior Court Commissioner, led to the
issuance of an extreme risk protection order and the seizure of his firearms. CP at 67.
Frerichs also included a copy of an administrative complaint he filed with the Spokane
Police Department Internal Affairs Division that grieved that law enforcement targeted
3 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
him for personal and political reasons. Frerichs speculated that Cooper maintained a
romantic relationship with an SPD officer.
The superior court reviewed the case on June 12, 2024. Jared Frerichs failed to
appear. The court concluded this lawsuit constituted abusive litigation. The superior
court wrote:
Based on the laws of Washington and the persuasive authority of Federal and other jurisdictions, there is no basis in law for this action to be brought against Ms. Cooper, and this filing it is clearly being used as a mechanism of abusive litigation and domestic violence. This litigation is part of the pattern of abusive litigation and domestic violence directed at Ms. Cooper by Mr. Frerichs.
CP at 54. The superior court lifted the stay, dismissed the action with prejudice,
and awarded attorney fees to Virginia Cooper for responding to the lawsuit.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Abusive Litigation
On appeal, Jared Frerichs contends the superior court abused its discretion when
denying him authorization to sue Virginia Cooper. Frerichs erroneously argues that
Spokane County Superior Court lacks venue for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Frerichs then
oddly argues that the existence of federal jurisdiction renders his state court filing non-
abusive. He further asserts that the superior court erred when dismissing the suit because
4 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
his claims involve personal injury, defamation, reputational harm, and property loss.
Frerichs did not assign error to the sanctions imposed.
We review a trial court’s decision to restrict a litigant’s access to the courts for
abuse of discretion. Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wn. App. 641, 657, 196 P.3d 753 (2008). A
court abuses its discretion when its ruling rests on untenable grounds or is made for
untenable reasons. Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 46-47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997).
The superior court did not act unreasonably when it ruled that Jared Frerichs filed suit as
part of a broader pattern of abusive litigation rooted in domestic violence.
The Abusive Litigation Act (ALA) of 2020 authorizes trial courts to impose
prefiling restrictions on parties who engage in abusive litigation. RCW 26.51.020(1)(a)
considers “abusive litigation” as:
(a)(i) The opposing parties have a current or former intimate partner relationship; (ii) The party who is filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing the litigation has been found by a court to have committed domestic violence against the other party pursuant to: (A) An order entered under chapter 7.105 RCW or former chapter 26.50 RCW; (B) a parenting plan with restrictions based on RCW 26.09.191(2)(a)(iii); or (C) a restraining order entered under chapter 26.09, 26.26A, or 26.26B RCW, provided that the issuing court made a specific finding that the restraining order was necessary due to domestic violence; and (iii) The litigation is being initiated, advanced, or continued primarily for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, or maintaining contact with the other party.
5 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
In 2023, the superior court found that Jared Frerichs had, (1) committed domestic
violence against Virginia Cooper, (2) engaged in abusive litigation, and (3) had
previously been sanctioned for filing pleadings deemed frivolous, vexatious, or made in
bad faith. As a result, the court prohibited Frerichs from “filing, initiating, advancing, or
continuing litigation against [Cooper] under any cause number” without first obtaining
court approval. CP at 17. This order falls within the authority granted by the ALA.
Under RCW 26.51.070(3)(a), a person subject to a prefiling order must seek
authorization from the issuing judicial officer before initiating any new litigation against
the protected party. If the judicial officer determines that the proposed action would
constitute abusive litigation, the court must deny authorization. RCW 26.51.070(c)(i).
Legal scholars have documented how abusers exploit the legal system to exert
control over survivors of domestic violence. As one commentator explains, abusers often
disguise themselves as victims in court filings, make false reports to child welfare and
licensing agencies, and flood courts with excessive or frivolous pleadings designed to
overwhelm, intimidate, and financially burden survivors and their counsel. Ashley
Beeman, The Need for More States to Adopt Specific Legislation Addressing Abusive Use
of Litigation in Intimate Partner Violence, 20 Seattle Just. for Soc. Just. 825, 832 (2022).
In his reply brief, Jared Frerichs attempts to challenge the 2023 order that declared
him an abusive litigator. He maintains that the 2023 court denied him a full evidentiary
6 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
hearing required under RCW 26.51.040. Frerichs also asserts that ALA protects only
“authentic victims” and Virginia Cooper obtained the order through material
misrepresentations. CP at 3. Finally, he contends that the 2023 order unlawfully denied
him access to the courts.
Jared Frerichs did not raise these arguments in his opening brief. This court does
not consider contentions raised for the first time in a reply brief. Marriage of Sacco, 114
Wn.2d 1, 5, 784 P.2d 1266 (1990). Moreover, Frerichs failed to appeal the 2023 order
after its entry and cannot now mount a collateral challenge.
Attorney Fees
Virginia Cooper seeks sanctions and attorney fees incurred on appeal under CR 11
and RCW 26.51.060(2)(b). Under RAP 18.1, a party may recover reasonable attorney
fees on appeal when authorized by contract, statute, or a recognized equitable basis, and
the party substantially prevails. Superior Court Judges v. Killian, 195 Wn.2d 350, 363,
459 P.3d 1082 (2020). The ALA expressly permits an award of attorney fees and costs.
RCW 26.51.060(2)(b). Because Cooper has prevailed on appeal, we grant her request for
attorney fees and costs.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the superior court’s dismissal of Jared Frerichs’ suit. We award
Virginia Cooper reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal.
7 No. 40552-4-III Frerichs v Cooper
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_____________________ Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________ Murphy, J.
______________________________ Staab, A.C.J.