Campbell v. Milous James Ivory

Background

The court considered related cases involving the same state-court unlawful-detainer action: Campbell v. Ivory, No. 26-cv-04585-EMC, and Campbell v. Diaz, No. 26-cv-07036-EMC. Ivory removed the state case four times, and Diaz removed it once. The federal court remanded each action because subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking. The court also noted that Ivory had repeatedly removed an earlier partition case and that those removals had likewise been remanded.

Campbell moved to declare Ivory and Diaz vexatious litigants and to impose prefiling review. A prefiling order requires a court to review certain papers before the clerk accepts them for filing. Neither Ivory nor Diaz filed a response or appeared at the hearing.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on the federal courts’ inherent authority to regulate abusive litigation and on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). It applied the Ninth Circuit’s four requirements for a prefiling order: notice and an opportunity to be heard; an adequate record of the litigant’s filings; a substantive finding that the conduct was frivolous or harassing; and a narrowly tailored order.

The court found a sufficient basis to declare Ivory a vexatious litigant. It concluded that his four removals of the same unlawful-detainer action lacked merit, that later removals were made in bad faith, and that the removals occurred at critical points in the state litigation. The court also found that the removals caused Campbell and the court unnecessary time and expense. The court stated that Ivory may have influenced Diaz to remove the case, but it did not make the same vexatious-litigant finding as to Diaz because she had formally removed the case only once and the record did not clearly establish what she knew about Ivory’s prior removals.

Rulings and order

The court granted Campbell’s motion to declare Ivory a vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order. It denied Campbell’s motion to declare Diaz a vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order without prejudice. The court warned Diaz 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.

The prefiling order applies to Ivory and any person or entity acting on his behalf. The clerk may not accept a notice of removal, complaint, petition, motion, or other initiating paper seeking to remove, stay, enjoin, or otherwise affect the specified state unlawful-detainer or eviction proceeding unless the General Duty Judge first reviews and approves it, or Ivory is represented by a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the district. Before seeking approval, the filer must provide the proposed paper, a letter explaining why it is not legally or factually frivolous, and a copy of the order. The court rejected a proposed provision that would have directed the state court and other state officials how to treat filings. The order states that Ivory may seek to modify or dissolve it for good cause, after two years, or upon a material change in circumstances.