LAW.coLAW.co

HOLLYWOOD v. CARROWS CALIFORNIA FAMILY RESTAURANTS INC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-22No. No. 20-55012, No. 20-55013, No. 20-55014, No. 20-55075

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's vexatious litigant declaration and pre-filing review order, finding no abuse of discretion where the lower court provided due process, developed an adequate record, made substantive findings regarding the nature of the litigants' history, and narrowly tailored the filing prohibition.

Two pro se appellants, Arogant Hollywood and Alison Helen Fairchild, challenged a district court order designating them as vexatious litigants and imposing restrictions on their ability to file future lawsuits without judicial pre-approval. The appellate court examined whether the lower court abused its discretion in making this determination. The court found that the district court properly followed required procedures, including providing notice and a hearing opportunity, creating a sufficient factual record, documenting the frivolous and harassing character of the appellants' litigation pattern, and crafting a narrowly tailored filing restriction.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Standards for declaring parties vexatious litigants
  • Requirements for imposing pre-filing review orders
  • Procedural due process in vexatious litigant proceedings
  • Appellate review of discretionary vexatious litigant determinations

Procedural posture

The appellants appealed pro se from a district court order declaring them vexatious litigants and imposing a pre-filing review requirement to the appellate court, which reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Arogant Hollywood and Alison Helen Fairchild appeal pro se from the district courts order declaring them to be vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing review order against them. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Hollywood and Fairchild to be vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing review order against them after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making substantive findings as to the frivolous and harassing nature of Hollywood and Fairchilds litigation history, and narrowly tailoring the prohibition on future filings. See id. (setting forth requirements for pre-filing review orders).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Hollywoods opposed motion for an order requiring appellees to re-serve the supplemental excerpts of record is denied. All other pending motions are granted. The Clerk will file Hollywoods corrected reply brief, Hollywoods supplemental brief, Fairchilds supplemental brief, and Fairchilds reply brief.

AFFIRMED.