Rynn et al v. Jennings et al

Filing 183

ORDERED: Under Rule 11 and its inherent powers, the Court imposes monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 on each Plaintiff, Richard Rynn, Gelliana Rynn, and Marcella Rynn, for a total of $3,000.00, payable to the Court. Plaintiffs&# 039; pending Motions (Docs. 178 , 179 , 180 ) are denied. Plaintiffs' Application for Entry of Default against Candy Zammit is denied. (Doc. 177 ) Richard Rynn's ECF privileges are terminated. The Clerk of Court shall close the file in this action. Signed by Chief District Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 3/8/25. (MYE)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Richard Rynn, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

Craig Jennings, et al.,

13

No. CV-24-00594-TUC-JGZ
ORDER

Defendants.

14
15

On February 19, 2025, the Court granted all pending motions to dismiss in this case

16

and denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 174 at 16–18.)

17

The Court ordered Plaintiffs to “show cause: (1) why they should not be sanctioned

18

pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers for filing this lawsuit in bad faith; and (2) why they

19

have not violated Rule 11(b) by presenting frivolous claims for an improper purpose”

20

within 14 days. (Id. at 17–18.) Rather than respond to the Court’s show-cause order,

21

Plaintiffs filed three new motions that re-raise the same arguments this Court rejected in

22

its Order dismissing this case. (See Docs. 178, 179, 180.) Therefore, the Court will impose

23

monetary sanctions on each Plaintiff and revoke Mr. Rynn’s e-filing privileges.

24

I.

Legal Standard

25

A. Rule 11 Sanctions

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that, by presenting “a pleading, written

27

motion, or other paper” to the court, an “unrepresented party certifies that” such a pleading

28

or motion:

6

(1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or
reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
information.

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court

8

determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction

9

on any . . . party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

11(c)(1). To impose a monetary sanction sua sponte under Rule 11, the Court must have

11

“issued [a] show-cause order . . . before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims

12

made by . . . the party that is . . . to be sanctioned.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3), (5)(B). “[A]ny

13

Rule 11 monetary sanction imposed pursuant to the court’s initiative must be . . . payable

14

to the court.” Gonzales v. Texaco Inc., 344 F. App’x 304, 309 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Barber

15

v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 711 (9th Cir. 1998)).

1
2
3
4
5

16

B. Sanctions Under the Court’s Inherent Powers

17

Additionally, “federal courts possess inherent power to impose sanctions, ‘when the

18

losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’”

19

Stone v. Baum, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1171 (D. Ariz. 2005) (quoting Aloe Vera of Am., Inc.

20

v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964–65 (9th Cir. 2004)). To impose sanctions under its

21

inherent powers, the Court must make a specific finding of bad faith. In re Keegan Mgmt.

22

Co., Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th Cir. 1996). Generally, the issuance of sanctions sua

23

sponte requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Am. Unites for Kids v. Rousseau,

24

985 F.3d 1075, 1095 (9th Cir. 2021).

25

The Court may also enjoin Plaintiffs from filing any further actions or papers

26

without first obtaining leave of the Court. Stone, 409 F. Supp. 2d at 1171–72 (citing De

27

Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146–49 (9th Cir. 1990)); see 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Pre-

28

filing orders against a self-represented plaintiff are an extreme remedy and should be

-2-

1

approached with caution. See Desmaine v. Columbia Sportswear Co., No. 3:24-CV-00067-

2

SB, 2025 WL 554133, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 27, 2025), report and recommendation adopted,

3

No. 3:24-CV-00067-SB, 2025 WL 552581 (D. Or. Feb. 18, 2025) (citing De Long, 912

4

F.2d at 1147). A pre-filing order is justified if four requirements are met: (1) the litigant

5

must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order is entered; (2) the

6

court must compile an adequate record for review; (3) the court must make substantive

7

findings about the frivolous or harassing nature of the plaintiff’s litigation; and (4) the order

8

must be narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered. Id. at *6 (citing

9

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)).

10

II.

Sanctions

11

Pursuant to Rule 11 and the Court’s inherent powers, the Court will impose

12

monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 on each Plaintiff, for a total of $3,000.00,

13

payable to the Court. (Doc. 174 at 6–14.) As outlined in the Court’s Order entered on

14

February 19, 2025, the instant case is Plaintiffs’ fourth litigation of their claims relating to

15

Marcella’s stay at Quail Run, removal, and dependency proceeding, and their claims

16

relating to the entry of the Injunction Against Harassment (“IAH”) against Richard by his

17

former co-worker. (Id.) A review of the dockets and appeals in the six prior cases reveals

18

Plaintiffs’ bad faith actions. (See id.; Doc. 68-17 at 1–2 (“The Court notes that Plaintiff

19

repeatedly asserts in his motion for reconsideration that he ‘has no choice but to continue

20

litigation and filing lawsuits year after year.’”).)

21

The Court has provided Plaintiffs with notice and an opportunity to be heard

22

regarding sanctions. (See Doc. 174.) Instead of addressing the Court’s concerns, Plaintiffs

23

filed a Motion to Strike the Court’s Order as Factually False, a Motion for a Mistrial, and

24

a Motion for a New Trial. (Docs. 178, 179, 180.) These motions do not provide any

25

justification for Plaintiffs’ actions or any reason the Court should not impose sanctions.

26

Instead, each motion repeats the same meritless arguments this and other courts have

27

rejected on numerous occasions.1 Plaintiffs’ claims have been resolved, repeatedly, at great

28

1

Plaintiffs’ only new arguments appear to be that this Court: (1) misapplied the doctrine
of res judicata because previous complaints are void; and (2) “engaged in conduct that
-3-

1

cost to the courts, taxpayers, and dozens of defendants.

2

As noted in the Court’s Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Allow Electronic Filing

3

by a Party Appearing Without an Attorney, “[a]ny misuse of the ECF system will result in

4

immediate discontinuation of this privilege and disabling of the password assigned to the

5

party.” (Doc. 105 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ excessive filings in this case have resulted in 182 docket

6

entries, and Plaintiffs ignored the Court’s instruction to file only an answer to the Court’s

7

show cause order. Therefore, the Court will revoke Rynn’s permission to file electronically

8

by use of the ECF system.

9

Accordingly,

10

IT IS ORDERED:

11

1.

Under Rule 11 and its inherent powers, the Court imposes monetary

12

sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 on each Plaintiff, Richard Rynn, Gelliana Rynn, and

13

Marcella Rynn, for a total of $3,000.00, payable to the Court.

14

2.

Plaintiffs’ pending Motions (Docs. 178, 179, 180) are denied.

15

3.

Plaintiffs’ Application for Entry of Default against Candy Zammit is denied.

16

(See Doc. 174 at 9 & n.8.)

17

4.

Richard Rynn’s ECF privileges are terminated.

18

5.

The Clerk of Court shall close the file in this action.

19

Dated this 8th day of March, 2025.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

compromises impartiality.” (Doc. 179 at 2–5.) These arguments misapprehend the law and
lack factual support.
-4-