Balik v. City of Torrance, 2:18-cv-02174

Background

Plaintiff Jeremiah William Balik filed a sprawling civil complaint (and many ancillary filings) alleging repeated constitutional and tort wrongs by numerous entities and individuals nationwide, including Rahm Emanuel and the Fred S. Upton Foundation.
Balik has an extensive litigation history since 2015 (about two dozen cases across state and federal courts), many of which were dismissed—several without leave to amend—and California state courts twice deemed him a vexatious litigant.
Multiple defendants (Next Generation Wireless; City of Cedar Falls, Iowa; Fred S. Upton Foundation; City of Manhattan Beach; City of San Bernardino) moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and related grounds.
Fred S. Upton Foundation moved for a federal pre-filing (vexatious litigant) order; Balik sought to delay that decision pending proceedings in California to remove him from that State’s vexatious-litigant list.
The District Court found Balik’s claims repetitive, largely fanciful, and frivolous; it granted the motion to deem him a vexatious litigant, issued a narrowly tailored pre-filing order, denied Balik’s delay requests, and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissing the action with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Balik should be declared a vexatious litigant and a pre-filing order entered	Balik contended prior adverse rulings were dated or result from bias; he argued persistence shows merits and sought delay pending CA proceedings	Defendants showed many prior frivolous filings, adverse rulings, and two California pre-filing orders; urged a narrowly tailored pre-filing order	Court held Balik is a vexatious litigant; granted a narrowly tailored pre-filing order requiring magistrate permission for certain filings and against specified defendants
Scope and tailoring of any pre-filing order	Balik argued broader access should remain; sought delay pending CA Supreme Court consideration	Defendants sought pre-filing restrictions targeted at repetitive civil-rights, harassment, and employment claims and suits against recurring defendants	Court narrowly tailored order: Balik may not file civil-rights, harassment, or employment-discrimination suits in D. Nev., or suits naming a listed group of defendants, without magistrate permission
Whether to delay ruling on vexatious motion pending California action	Balik requested delay awaiting possible removal from California vexatious list	Defendants opposed delay; urged prompt ruling based on record of nationwide filings	Court denied Balik’s delay motions and proceeded on the existing record
Whether the complaint states plausible claims (motions to dismiss)	Balik asserted his allegations had merit and discovery would prove them	Defendants argued the complaint is conclusory, implausible, repetitive, and legally deficient under Rule 8/12(b)(6)	Court found the allegations frivolous and implausible, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismissed the action with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards and De Long factors for pre-filing orders)
De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (framework for imposing pre-filing restrictions)
Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (assessing likelihood of continued abuse of judicial process)
Windsor v. Boushie, [citation="677 F. App'x 311"] (9th Cir. 2017) (opportunity to be heard may be satisfied by written submissions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain plausible factual allegations)
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards and requirement to plead factual content)
Faulkner v. ADT Security Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2013) (accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true on Rule 12 review)
Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts may judicially notice documents filed in other courts)