Gray v. CTP Funding, 2:23-cv-00663

Defendant CTP Funding moved for an Order to Show Cause to declare plaintiff Michele Gray a vexatious litigant and impose pre-filing requirements, arguing monetary sanctions would be ineffective due to her indigency.
Defendant asked the court to enjoin Gray from filing future actions against Defendant or closely affiliated parties.
Gray did not file a response to the motion; the time to respond expired.
The magistrate judge reviewed Ninth Circuit standards on pre-filing orders (All Writs Act; De Long factors; Ringgold-Lockhart guidance) and emphasized such orders are an extreme remedy and should be narrowly tailored.
The court concluded Gray’s filings were not an inordinate quantity nor shown to be filed with an intent to harass; it declined to impose a pre-filing injunction but cautioned Gray based on an earlier 2022 order in a prior case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pre-filing injunction is warranted	Gray did not respond to the motion (no argument presented)	Pre-filing injunction needed because sanctions unlikely to deter due to indigency and to prevent future related suits	Denied — injunction not warranted because filings are not inordinate or harassing
Whether court gave required notice/opportunity before entry	N/A (no opposition filed)	Court’s issuance of Order to Show Cause satisfies notice requirement	Court found procedural notice adequate (opportunity to oppose in writing is sufficient)
Whether Gray’s filing history shows frivolousness, harassment, or duplicative suits	N/A	Defendant contended filings justify a vexatious-litigant finding	Court held filings do not demonstrate the inordinate quantity or pattern needed for a vexatious-litigant order
Whether less-restrictive sanctions would suffice	N/A	Defendant argued injunction necessary because fees would be uncollectible	Court considered less-restrictive measures appropriate and declined the injunction; cautioned plaintiff instead

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (pre-filing orders available under All Writs Act but are an extreme remedy; caution urged).
Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2014) (sets De Long procedural and substantive requirements for vexatious-litigant orders).
De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (framework: notice, record of cases, substantive findings, narrow tailoring).
Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1983) (example of vexatious-litigant finding following numerous filings).