AROGANT HOLLYWOOD V. CARROWS CAL. FAM. REST., INC., No. 20-55012 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON HELEN FAIRCHILD, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-55012 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02098-JGB-GJS Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. CARROWS CALIFORNIA FAMILY RESTAURANTS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON HELEN FAIRCHILD, No. 20-55013 D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01822-JGB-GJS Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. AROGANT HOLLYWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 20-55014 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05607-JGB-GJS v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON HELEN FAIRCHILD, No. 20-55075 D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01664-JGB-GJS Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 2200 ONTARIO LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Arogant Hollywood and Alison Helen Fairchild appeal pro se from the district court’s 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. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 20-55012, 20-55013, 20-55014, 20-55075 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 Fairchild’s 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). Hollywood’s 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 Hollywood’s corrected reply brief, Hollywood’s supplemental brief, Fairchild’s supplemental brief, and Fairchild’s reply brief. AFFIRMED. 3 20-55012, 20-55013, 20-55014, 20-55075

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.