Justin Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14979
9th Cir.2014Background
- Nina Ringgold, former trustee of the Aubry Family Trust, was removed by the Los Angeles Probate Court; she alleges subsequent trustee misconduct and pursued extensive state and federal litigation.
- Ringgold was declared a vexatious litigant by California courts; she and her son Justin Ringgold-Lockhart then sued in federal court challenging the probate court’s actions.
- The district court dismissed their federal claims and, after a tentative ruling and briefing, entered a pre-filing injunction declaring both Ringgolds vexatious and requiring court permission before filing any action relating to the Trust or the administration of state/probate courts.
- The district court appended a list of filings and motions it deemed frivolous or duplicative as the factual basis for the injunction.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the district court satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements for imposing a pre-filing order and whether the order was narrowly tailored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before entering the pre-filing order? | Ringgolds argued process was insufficient. | Appellees contended notice and hearing were proper. | Court: Notice and opportunity to be heard were adequate. |
| Did the district court compile an adequate record listing cases/motions justifying a pre-filing order? | Ringgolds argued the record was insufficient/overinclusive. | Appellees argued the list and citations (including state decisions) were adequate. | Court: Record was adequate for appellate review. |
| Did the district court make sufficient substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment to justify the injunction? | Ringgolds argued filings were not inordinate or frivolous and court mischaracterized some motions (including responses and successful motions). | Appellees emphasized the history of meritless filings and state-court vexatious finding. | Court: District court failed to show inordinate filings and did not adequately consider less-restrictive sanctions; substantive findings were inadequate as to Ringgold-Lockhart and overall. |
| Was the pre-filing order narrowly tailored to the litigants’ abusive conduct? | Ringgolds argued the order was overbroad (merit gate, broad cover of "administration" of all state courts, and applied to Justin without basis). | Appellees argued broad scope necessary to prevent relitigation. | Court: Order was overbroad (improper "meritorious" screening, vague/expansive scope re: "administration of state courts", and improperly applied to Justin); vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (procedural and substantive requirements for pre-filing injunctions)
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (pre-filing orders should be rare; review standards)
- Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (factors to evaluate vexatious litigant and scope of relief)
- Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1990) (warning about chilling effect of pre-filing orders)
- Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1983) (narrow tailoring to prevent relitigation of decided issues)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts should prefer available sanctions under rules before invoking inherent powers)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (limits of pleading-stage merits determinations)
- BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002) (petition clause and right to access courts)