Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited Partnership et al, No. 4:2010cv03022 - Document 97 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS, TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS, TO TRANSFER CASE, TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL, FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/11/11. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited Partnership et al Doc. 97 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 SHARON BRIDGEWATER, 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 No. 10-03022 CW Plaintiff, v. HAYES VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants. 12 / 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS, TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS, TO TRANSFER CASE, TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL, FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL This case arises from an underlying state unlawful detainer 21 action against Plaintiff Sharon Bridgewater. 22 Valley Apartments II, LP (HVALP)1 and Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP 23 (KTJ), Jane Creason and Shawn Bankson (together, Legal Defendants), 24 in two separate motions, move to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Defendants Hayes 25 26 27 1 28 HVALP indicates that its name in the caption of the complaint is incorrect. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Complaint (1AC)2 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for 2 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (docket 3 nos. 31, 42).3 4 vexatious litigant (docket no. 23) and HVALP joins in this motion 5 (docket no. 30).4 6 transfer the case to another judge of this Court (docket no. 33), 7 for sanctions, in three separate motions (docket nos. 39, 58, 69), 8 for shortened time on the motions for sanctions (docket no. 65), to 9 file an amended complaint under seal (docket no. 82), for Legal Defendants move to declare Plaintiff a Plaintiff opposes the motions5 and moves to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute 11 (docket no. 86), to amend the complaint (docket no. 89), and to 12 appoint counsel (docket no. 93). 13 submission on the papers. 14 by the parties, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss and 15 to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and denies Plaintiff’s 16 motions. The motions were taken under Having considered all the papers filed 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 On August 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 1AC (docket no. 29). The Court accepts this as her operative complaint. On September 17, 2010, Plaintiff’s Errata First Amended Complaint was received by the Court. She did not ask for or receive the Court’s permission to file this document; therefore, it will not be filed. 3 On August 4, 2010, Defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s original complaint (docket nos. 22, 24). After Plaintiff filed her 1AC, Defendants filed the instant motions to dismiss the 1AC. Accordingly, the motions to dismiss the original complaint are denied as moot. 4 It appears that four other named Defendants have not been served. 5 27 28 Plaintiff's opposition merely states, "The parties should agree to come to terms." Docket no. 78. 2 1 2 BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the allegations in 3 Plaintiff’s 1AC and documents filed in Defendants' request for 4 judicial notice.6 5 projects. 6 litigation and, since 1977, has represented HVALP. 7 Ms. Creason are attorneys employed by KTJ who were involved in an 8 unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff. 9 HVALP develops and manages low income housing KTJ is a law firm that specializes in unlawful detainer Mr. Bankson and Plaintiff is a forty-five year old African American single United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 mother. 11 an apartment at 427 Page Street, San Francisco, California, which 12 HVALP developed and managed. 13 state court, an unlawful detainer action against Bridgewater based 14 on her alleged failure to pay rent for her apartment. 15 Limited Partnership v. Bridgewater, No. CUD-06-617995. 16 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment 17 and dismissal. 18 signed this document. 19 From January, 2005 through May, 2008, Plaintiff lived in On April 24, 2006, HVALP filed, in Hayes Valley On May 11, However, Plaintiff disputes that she actually On November 12, 2007, Plaintiff received an “improper notice” 20 from Defendants to pay rent or quit her apartment on Page Street. 21 1AC at 16. 22 had credit balances on her rental ledger. 23 17, 2007, based on HVALC’s declaration that Plaintiff was not in 24 compliance with the 2006 stipulation, the state court entered 25 judgment against Plaintiff for $638 and for possession of the Page At that time, Plaintiff was not delinquent in rent and 1AC at 16. On December 26 27 28 6 The Court grants Defendants' request for judicial notice. 3 1 Street apartment. 2 possession which required her to vacate her apartment in five days. Subsequently, Plaintiff received a writ for 3 Plaintiff went to various community agencies for help. 4 community legal agency discovered that Mr. Bankson had improperly 5 obtained a judgment for possession of Plaintiff’s premises pursuant 6 to an “illegal” unlawful detainer lawsuit he had filed nearly two 7 years previously. 8 judgment, which the court granted on January 22, 2008. 9 Ex. 8. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 1AC at 17. A Plaintiff moved to vacate the 1AC at 18, Meanwhile, Plaintiff located another apartment on Oakdale 11 Street in San Francisco, where she moved in January, 2008. 12 10 (lease agreement, security deposit receipt). 13 Plaintiff’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 worker 14 informed her that HVALP continued to receive Plaintiff’s HUD 15 section 8 rental payments and would not release them to her new 16 landlord on Oakdale Street. 17 worker instructed her to move back to the Page Street apartment 18 that she had just vacated, and Plaintiff did so. 19 Plaintiff lost her security deposit on the Oakdale Street apartment 20 and owed another month’s rent for breaching the lease agreement. 21 1AC at 19. 22 1AC at 19. Exs. 9, Subsequently, Plaintiff’s section 8 Id. In moving, In February, 2008, Defendants Creason, Bankson and HVALP made 23 intentional misrepresentations to Plaintiff that she owed $2,174.74 24 in unpaid rent plus attorneys’ fees of $955. 25 that, if she did not pay these amounts, she would have to vacate 26 the apartment within twenty-eight days. 27 was “in complete mental incompetent state of mind” and under 28 4 They told Plaintiff 1AC at 21. Plaintiff, who 1 duress, signed the agreement. 1AC at 21. On February 19, 2008, a second stipulated judgment was entered 3 in the state case which provided that, on April 30, 2008, HVALP was 4 to receive possession of the Page Street apartment from Bridgewater 5 and, in return, HVALP would waive the past due rent and attorneys’ 6 fees and costs and would return Ms. Bridgewater’s security deposit. 7 1AC, Ex. 11, ¶ 1, 2, 3, 7. 8 that (1) if Ms. Bridgewater failed to comply with any of the terms 9 of the agreement, judgment would enter for possession and the full 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 2 amount of past due rent, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a writ of 11 execution for money and possession would issue immediately, upon 12 the declaration of HVALP’s counsel, id. ¶ 9; and (2) the agreement 13 was dispositive of all issues raised in HVALC’s complaint and all 14 affirmative defenses which could have been raised in Ms. 15 Bridgewater’s answer, id. ¶ 11. 16 The stipulated judgment also provided Subsequently, Plaintiff filed nine lawsuits based upon the 17 unlawful detainer action, two in state court and seven in federal 18 court, including the instant case. 19 In this lawsuit, based upon the aforementioned allegations, 20 Plaintiff states two federal claims: against all Defendants, 21 conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for deprivation of 22 property without due process and discrimination based on race and 23 class; and, against Legal Defendants, violation of the Fair Debt 24 Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. 25 also asserts nine state law claims. 26 27 28 5 Plaintiff 1 2 DISCUSSION I. Motion to Dismiss 3 A. 4 Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district Subject Matter Jurisdiction 5 court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. 6 Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 7 at the time the action is commenced. 8 Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th 9 Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1006 (1989). Fed. R. Federal subject matter jurisdiction must exist Morongo Band of Mission A Rule 12(b)(1) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 motion may either attack the sufficiency of the pleadings to 11 establish federal jurisdiction, or allege an actual lack of 12 jurisdiction which exists despite the formal sufficiency of the 13 complaint. 14 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979); Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 15 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). 16 Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue which goes to 17 the power of the court to hear the case. 18 12(b)(1) challenge should be decided before other grounds for 19 dismissal, because they will become moot if dismissal is granted. 20 Alvares v. Erickson, 514 F.2d 156, 160 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 21 423 U.S. 874 (1975); 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 22 Federal Practice & Procedure § 1350, p. 210 (2d ed. 1990). 23 Therefore, a Rule A federal court is presumed to lack subject matter 24 jurisdiction until the contrary affirmatively appears. 25 Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 26 An action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 27 jurisdiction without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend 28 6 Stock West, 1 unless it is clear that the jurisdictional deficiency cannot be 2 cured by amendment. 3 637 F.2d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 1980). 4 May Department Store v. Graphic Process Co., Citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), Defendants argue that, because this action 6 arises out of the judgment entered in the state unlawful detainer 7 action, it must be dismissed because federal courts lack subject 8 matter jurisdiction to review state court adjudications. 9 United States district courts generally do not have 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions, even if 11 those challenges raise federal constitutional issues. 12 Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Feldman, 460 U.S. 13 at 476, 482-83; see also Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005 14 (1994) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars party losing in state court 15 from seeking what would be appellate review of state judgment in 16 federal court based on losing party's claim that state judgment 17 violates its federal rights). 18 determines a federal question, recourse does not lie to the United 19 States District Court or to the United States Court of Appeals. 20 Jurisdiction to review the judgments of state courts lies 21 exclusively in the United States Supreme Court.” 22 Co. v. Airport Depot Diner, Inc., 120 F.3d 166, 169 (9th Cir. 23 1997). 24 Rooker v. “If [the state] court erroneously Exxon Shipping The clear intent of the February 19, 2008 stipulated judgment 25 was to settle all disputes arising from the unlawful detainer 26 action. 27 entail reviewing that judgment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies 28 7 Because Plaintiff's two federal claims would necessarily 1 and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them. 2 Therefore, these claims are dismissed. 3 to amend because amendment would be futile. Dismissal is without leave 4 B. Supplemental Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims 5 Where a federal court has federal question jurisdiction over a 6 matter, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state 7 law claims that are transactionally related to the federal claim. 8 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 9 in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 Section 1367(a) provides in pertinent part that The Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 14 Plaintiff's state law claims because the Court has dismissed her 15 federal claims for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the claims are 16 dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.7 17 II. Vexatious Litigant 18 Defendants request that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious 19 litigant because she has filed nine lawsuits based upon the state 20 unlawful detainer action. 21 Federal courts have the inherent power "to regulate the 22 activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored 23 restrictions under the appropriate circumstances." 24 Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). DeLong v. One such carefully 25 7 26 27 28 Because all of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court does not address Defendants' arguments regarding dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 8 tailored restriction is an order requiring a litigant to seek 2 permission from the court prior to filing any future suits. 3 1146-47. 4 affirmative obligation to ensure that judicial resources are not 5 needlessly squandered on repeated attempts by litigants to misuse 6 the courts." 7 Nonetheless, pre-filing review orders should rarely be used. 8 v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 order "cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness." 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 The plaintiff's claims must not only be numerous, but also be 11 patently without merit. 12 Id. at As noted by the Ninth Circuit, district courts "bear an O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 1990). Moy A pre-filing Id. Id. The Ninth Circuit has established four guidelines "to maintain 13 this delicate balance between broad court access and prevention of 14 court abuse." 15 a vexatious litigant order: (1) the plaintiff must be given 16 adequate notice to oppose entry of the order; (2) the court must 17 present an adequate record by listing the case filings that support 18 its order; (3) the court must make substantive findings of 19 frivolousness or harassment; and (4) the order must be narrowly 20 tailored to remedy only the plaintiff's particular abuses. 21 DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147-49. 22 A. Adequate Notice 23 The docket reflects that Plaintiff has received notice of this O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617. Before a court enters 24 motion. 25 evidencing that she has been notified of it and has had an 26 opportunity to be heard. Moreover, Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion, 27 28 Id.; 9 1 B. Adequate Record for Review 2 The district court must create a record for review which 3 includes a listing of all the cases and motions that led it to 4 conclude that a pre-filing order was needed. 5 in some manner, that the litigant's activities were numerous or 6 abusive. 7 The record must show, Id. at 1147. As noted above, Plaintiff has filed six other cases in this 8 district based upon the allegations in the instant action. These 9 cases are as follows: (1) Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Partnership, et al., C 08-5622 MHP, filed on December 17, 2008 and 11 dismissed on January 27, 2009; (2) Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley 12 Limited Partnership, et al., C 09-3551 PJH, filed on August 3, 2009 13 and dismissed on November 20, 2009, judgment entered on November 14 20, 2009; (3) Bridgewater v. Bankson, et al., C 09-3639 SBA, filed 15 on August 7, 2009 and dismissed on January 19, 2010; 16 (4) Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited Partnership, et al., C 09- 17 5663 SBA, filed on December 1, 2009 and dismissed on January 19, 18 2010; (5) Bridgewater v. Hayes Valley Limited Partnership, et al., 19 C 10-0703 SBA, filed on February 18, 2010 and dismissed on August 20 24, 2010; and (6) Bridgewater v. Bankson, et al., C 10-0704 SBA, 21 filed on February 18, 2010 and dismissed on August 24, 2010. 22 six cases, in addition to the instant case, have led the Court to 23 conclude that a pre-filing order may be necessary. These 24 C. Substantive Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment 25 The district court must make substantive findings as to the 26 frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions. 27 find the litigant's claims frivolous after looking at both the 28 10 It must 1 number and content of the filings, or, alternatively, find that the 2 claims show a pattern of harassment. 3 The factors to be looked at include: (1) the litigant's history of 4 litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, 5 harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in 6 pursuing the litigation, that is, whether the litigant has an 7 objective good faith expectation of prevailing; (3) whether the 8 litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed 9 an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1148. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 (4) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts 11 and other parties. 12 Cir. 1986). 13 14 Considering the number of filings and their content, the Court determines that Plaintiff's claims are frivolous. (1) History of Litigation 15 16 Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2nd Plaintiff's first federal lawsuit, C 08-5622 MHP, asserted 17 claims against HVALP and other unidentified parties. 18 MHP, docket no. 1, comp. ¶ 5(a)-(e). 19 upon the same unlawful detainer action upon which this case is 20 based. 21 20, 2007, the defendants fraudulently filed a declaration of non- 22 compliance; judgment thereon; and an order in the superior court to 23 fraudulently evict her. 24 received a judgment in superior court based on fraud, 25 misrepresentation and/or negligence. 26 for a variety of reasons, including lack of federal jurisdiction. 27 Id., docket no. 10 at 2. 28 Id. ¶ 6. C 08-5622 The allegations were based For instance, Plaintiff alleged that, on November On December 19, 2007, the defendants The complaint was dismissed The order of dismissal noted, "To the 11 1 extent plaintiff has legitimate claims, she should file them in 2 state court and seek a reopening of that action." Id. Plaintiff's second federal lawsuit, C 09-3551 PJH, alleged 3 4 claims against HVALP, the property manager at Plaintiff's apartment 5 complex, and other unidentified parties. 6 1, Comp. ¶¶ 5-8. 7 unlawful detainer lawsuit of non-payment of rent. . . . The case 8 number was CUD-06-617995, for the premises commonly know [sic] as 9 427 Page St., San Francisco, CA 94102." C 09-3551 PJH, docket no. Plaintiff alleged, "This case stems from an Comp. ¶ 9. As in this United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 case, Plaintiff alleged that the defendants coerced her into 11 entering a fraudulent stipulation for judgment. 12 order of dismissal of this federal complaint noted that Plaintiff 13 had filed a lawsuit seven months before in federal court based on 14 the same allegations, which had been dismissed. 15 complaint was ninety-three pages long and alleged twenty-two causes 16 of action, seeking damages of over one trillion dollars. 17 docket no. 11 at 3. 18 claims, with prejudice, on statute of limitations grounds and lack 19 of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman 20 doctrine, stating, "[T]he February 19, 2008 stipulation of judgment 21 and dismissal clearly contemplated a final resolution of the 22 matter, including any affirmative defenses that Bridgewater could 23 have brought in connection with the state court action." 24 8. Comp. ¶ 28. The The second federal Id., The court dismissed Plaintiff's federal Id. at 6, 25 Plaintiff's third case, C 09-3639 SBA, was brought against 26 Kimball, Tirey & St. John, LLP, Shawn Bankson and Jane Creason, 27 Legal Defendants in the instant case. 28 12 This complaint alleged that 1 the defendants filed the unlawful detainer action against her 2 without making a proper inquiry into the circumstances. 3 SBA, docket no. 1 at ¶ 12. 4 the settlement conference for the unlawful detainer action, the 5 defendants falsely asserted to the judge and to Plaintiff that she 6 owed over $2,000 in unpaid rent and, by making these 7 misrepresentations, the defendants induced her to sign a fraudulent 8 stipulated judgment for possession of her Page Street apartment. 9 Id. at ¶¶ 21, 22. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 C 09-3639 The complaint also alleged that, during Plaintiff asserted one federal claim for deprivation of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In Plaintiff's fourth federal case, C 09-5663 SBA, she alleged 12 a Seventh Amendment claim against HVALP and managers of the Page 13 Street apartment. 14 The court dismissed both cases; the federal claims were Id., docket no. 38 at 8. The court held 15 dismissed with prejudice. 16 that the Seventh Amendment claim failed for several reasons, one of 17 which was lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker- 18 Feldman doctrine. 19 February 19, 2008 stipulation of judgment in the state court 20 unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff attempted to have the judgment 21 vacated on several grounds, including that it violated her Fifth 22 and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. 23 denied her request on September 1, 2009. 24 of Plaintiff's request and its decision to uphold the judgment and 25 dismissal clearly contemplate a final resolution on the matter, 26 including any other affirmative defenses that Plaintiff could have 27 brought in connection with that action. 28 Id. at 7. The court noted, "After entry of the 13 The state court The state court's denial Plaintiff may not now seek 1 2 redress in district court." Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff's fifth and sixth federal cases, C 10-0703 SBA, and 3 C 10-704 SBA, based on the same unlawful detainer action, were 4 dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. 5 C 10-703 SBA, docket no. 37; C 10-704 SBA, docket no. 32. 6 Plaintiff's instant lawsuit is her seventh attempt to re- 7 litigate the state unlawful detainer action in federal court. 8 discussed previously in this Order, this Court has granted 9 As Defendants' motions to dismiss based on lack of subject matter United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 jurisdiction. 11 devoid of a colorable federal claim. 12 unsuccessful federal lawsuits based on the underlying state court 13 unlawful detainer action, most of which were dismissed for lack of 14 subject matter jurisdiction, the history of Plaintiff's litigation 15 provides good cause to declare her a vexatious litigant. 16 17 In light of this disposition, this case is also Given Plaintiff's previous 2. Litigant's Objective Expectation of Prevailing In her opposition, Plaintiff argues she should not be declared 18 a vexatious litigant because, in their motion, Defendants made 19 willful, intentional misrepresentations and thus continue with 20 their conspiracies to defraud the Court. 21 argues that Defendants’ claim that she entered into the first 22 stipulated judgment is false. 23 actions may have been in state court, they cannot be adjudicated in 24 federal district court; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars litigation 25 of state court judgments in federal district court. 26 explained to Plaintiff by three judges of this Court in her first 27 four federal lawsuits. 28 Opp. at 1-2. Plaintiff No matter how egregious Defendants' This was Plaintiff cannot have an objective belief 14 1 that she will prevail in federal court. 2 warrants finding that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. 3. Needless Expense to Parties and Burden on the Court 3 4 Therefore, this factor Defendants indicate that, although Plaintiff’s previous 5 lawsuits were dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 before Defendants 6 had to make an appearance, they have expended significant time, 7 effort and expense in reviewing, evaluating, and monitoring the 8 cases Plaintiff has filed against them. 9 this case, Plaintiff’s filings have required Defendants to respond The Court notes that, in United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 to two complaints and three motions for sanctions. 11 Plaintiff's filings have placed a burden on the Court. 12 instance, in this case alone, Plaintiff has filed a fifty page 13 complaint, (docket no. 1), a forty-six page amended complaint with 14 sixty-six pages of exhibits, (docket no. 29), three motions for 15 sanctions, (docket nos. 39, 58, 69), a motion for reconsideration, 16 (docket no. 86), a motion to file an amended complaint under seal, 17 (docket no. 82), and a motion to amend the original complaint, 18 (docket. no. 89). 19 frivolous. 20 jurisdiction over this case, as it did over Plaintiff's previous 21 cases, creates a more onerous burden because these filings are 22 duplicative and unnecessary. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Furthermore, For Many of these filings are repetitious and The fact that the Court lacks subject matter Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. 4. Whether Other Sanctions Would be Adequate In her opposition, Plaintiff posits that Defendants' motion should be denied because they are lying to the Court. 15 She fails to 1 address any of Defendants' arguments that she has filed six other 2 unsuccessful federal lawsuits based upon the same unlawful detainer 3 action. 4 a vexatious litigant, she is likely to continue filing complaints 5 based on the unlawful detainer action. 6 weighs in favor of declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. This evidences that, without an order declaring Plaintiff Therefore, this factor 7 D. Narrowly Tailored Order 8 The pre-filing order must "closely fit the specific vice 9 encountered." Delong, 912 F.2d at 1148. An order preventing a United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 litigant from filing any further actions without leave of court, 11 for example, ordinarily is overly broad and cannot stand. 12 Moy, 906 F.2d at 470-71. 13 Id.; In this case, Defendants only object to Plaintiff's filing 14 frivolous lawsuits based upon the underlying state unlawful 15 detainer action. 16 requiring Plaintiff to obtain leave of the Court before filing 17 another lawsuit against Defendants arising out of the unlawful 18 detainer action. 19 Thus, the Court will issue a separate order Therefore, the Court grants Defendants' motion to declare 20 Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. 21 III. Plaintiff's Motions 22 23 A. Motions for Sanctions In Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions, (docket no. 39), 24 she claims that Defendants, in their motion to declare her a 25 vexatious litigant, “made intentional, willfully, knowingly [sic] 26 misrepresentations, to this US District Court. . . . The defendants 27 are officer [sic] of the court and the plaintiff request [sic] 28 16 1 2 sanctions against the defendants.” In Plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions (docket no. 58), 3 she argues that, in their vexatious litigant motion, Legal 4 Defendants knowingly misrepresented to the Court that Plaintiff 5 entered into a first stipulated judgment and that her motion to 6 vacate the first judgment was granted because it was unopposed. 7 Plaintiff states that the defendants in the state court action 8 filed a two or three page opposition to her motion and submits the 9 docket of the state court case which indicates that, on January 11, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to her motion. In Plaintiff’s third motion for sanctions (docket no. 69), she makes the same arguments as in her first two motions. 13 Defendants respond that, although the docket sheet in the 14 state court action indicates that, on January 11, 2008, HVALP filed 15 an opposition to the motion to vacate the judgment, the January 22, 16 2008 docket entry of the hearing on the motion indicates that the 17 motion was granted “as no substantive opposition filed. 18 signed in open court.” 19 Defendants argue that they did not misrepresent that Plaintiff’s 20 motion was unopposed. 21 Order Based on the second docket entry, The actual order signed by the state court judge states, “This 22 matter came before the court on January 22, 2008. 23 the arguments and evidence presented, good cause appearing thereon, 24 the Court finds that the judgment entered on December 19, 2007 is 25 hereby vacated.” 26 the motion to vacate, which was noted in the court’s docket, but 27 that the opposition did not contain substantive argument. 28 Upon considering It appears that HVALP submitted an opposition to 17 In any 1 event, whether HVALP submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion 2 to vacate the first judgment is not relevant to the outcome of 3 Plaintiff’s claims in this case. 4 entered into the February 19, 2009 Stipulation for Entry of 5 Judgment. 6 Plaintiff is barred from litigating in federal district court under 7 Rooker-Feldman. 8 circumstances and Plaintiff’s motions are denied. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 B. What is relevant is that she That is the dispositive state court order which Sanctions are not warranted under these Motions to Transfer, to Reconsider, to Amend/Correct and Quash, to File Under Seal and to Appoint Counsel 1. Motion to Transfer In her motion to transfer (docket no. 33), Plaintiff requests that this case be transferred to the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, another judge of this Court who presided over four of Plaintiff’s previous cases. Plaintiff states that she meant to file an amended complaint and pay her filing fee in case number C 10-0703 SBA, but that the Clerk of the Court did not realize this, gave a new case number to the complaint and assigned it to the undersigned. On July 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed, in case number C 10-0703 SBA, an emergency motion to determine if the instant case was related to case number C 10-0703 SBA. Armstrong entered an order in case number C 10-0703 SBA and this case indicating that the cases are not related. This decision is left to the discretion of the judge in the first-filed case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for a transfer is denied. 26 27 28 On August 24, 2010, Judge 18 2. Motion for Reconsideration 1 2 In her motion for reconsideration (docket no. 86), Plaintiff 3 requests that the Court vacate previous Orders dated September 27, 4 2010 and October 8, 2010 dismissing her case for failure to 5 prosecute. 6 cannot vacate them. 7 reconsideration is denied. 8 9 However, this Court did not make these orders and Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for 3. Motions to Amend, Quash and Seal On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 original complaint, quash the 1AC and quash service of summons to 11 Defendants (docket no. 91). 12 and served the original complaint on Defendants, she filed and 13 served it in error. 14 error and never served it on Defendants. 15 leave to amend her original complaint. 16 Plaintiff also filed an administrative motion to file her proposed 17 new amended complaint under seal because it “contains highly 18 confidential material, only the Federal Bureau of Investigation 19 should have access to.” 20 21 She states that, although she filed She also states that she filed the 1AC in Therefore, she requests On December 6, 2010, (Docket No. 82). These motions lack merit and are denied. 4. Motion to Appoint Counsel 22 Because the Court has ruled that it lacks subject matter 23 jurisdiction over this case, her motion to appoint counsel is 24 denied as moot. 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint (docket nos. 22, 24) are denied as moot, Defendants’ 19 1 motions to dismiss the 1AC (docket nos. 31, 42) are granted and 2 their motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant (docket no. 3 23) is granted. 4 pre-filing review of any complaint Plaintiff attempts to file in 5 this Court. 6 claims are dismissed without leave to amend and her state claims 7 are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The 8 Clerk of the Court shall close this case. The Court will issue a separate order requiring Plaintiff’s motions are denied. Plaintiff’s federal 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/11/11 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 BRIDGEWATER, Case Number: CV10-03022 CW 4 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. HAYES VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al, Defendant. / 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on February 11, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 14 15 16 Sharon Bridgewater P.O. Box 422145 San Francisco, CA 94142-2145 17 Dated: February 11, 2011 18 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21
]]>
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.
