Campbell v. Milous James Ivory

Background

Two related cases concerned the same state-court unlawful-detainer action, a lawsuit seeking possession of property: Campbell v. Ivory, No. 26-cv-04585-EMC, and Campbell v. Diaz, No. 26-cv-07036-EMC. Ivory and Diaz each proceeded without a lawyer when they removed the state case to federal court. The court remanded both cases because federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking. Diaz also failed to respond to an order requiring her to explain why her removal should not be remanded and did not respond before the remand.

Campbell, the partition referee in the state-court property proceedings, asked the court to declare Ivory and Diaz vexatious litigants and impose prefiling requirements. A prefiling order requires court review before certain papers can be accepted for filing.

Legal standard

The court relied on the federal courts’ authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to regulate abusive litigation. It applied four factors: notice and an opportunity to be heard; an adequate record of the relevant litigation; a substantive finding that the conduct was frivolous or harassing; and a narrowly tailored order. The court also considered litigation history, motive, representation by counsel, unnecessary burdens or expenses, and whether other sanctions would be adequate.

Ruling as to Ivory

The court granted Campbell’s motion to declare Ivory a vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order. It found that Ivory had removed the same state-court unlawful-detainer action four times, and that each removal was remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that Ivory had previously removed the related partition case multiple times, with the federal courts likewise finding no subject-matter jurisdiction. According to the court, several removals occurred when a state-court summary-judgment hearing or trial was approaching, preventing the state case from moving forward. The court found Ivory’s positions frivolous, his conduct harassing, and the removals after the first one undertaken in bad faith.

The order applies to Ivory and any person or entity acting on his behalf. It covers any notice of removal, complaint, petition, motion, or other initiating paper seeking to remove, pause, block, or otherwise affect a state-court unlawful-detainer or eviction proceeding concerning 625 Sawyer Street, San Francisco, California, including the specified state case. The Clerk may not file or accept such papers unless the General Duty Judge first reviews and approves them, or Ivory is represented by a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the court.

Before seeking to file a covered paper, Ivory or an authorized person or entity must give the Clerk the proposed paper and a letter explaining why the filing is legally and factually nonfrivolous, along with a copy of the order. If the General Duty Judge determines that a case-initiating paper is frivolous, the Clerk must return the documents without filing them. An action filed in violation of the order may be remanded or dismissed by the assigned court without a party first requesting that action. The order also permits Ivory to seek modification or dissolution for good cause, after two years, or upon a material change in circumstances.

Ruling as to Diaz

The court denied Campbell’s motion to declare Diaz a vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order, without prejudice. The court distinguished Diaz from Ivory because Diaz had formally removed the unlawful-detainer action only once. The court stated that the record did not clearly establish whether Diaz knew of Ivory’s prior removals. It warned that future efforts to remove the state case or interfere with the state proceeding could lead to a vexatious-litigant finding or sanctions, including possible payment of Campbell’s attorney’s fees.

Disposition

The order granted Campbell’s motion as to Ivory and denied the motion as to Diaz without prejudice. It disposed of the motion in each related case. The opinion text identifies the signing judge as Edward Chen, although the supplied case information lists Thomas Hixson.