Quillinan v. Ainsworth et al

Filing 101

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying Defendants' #90 Second Motion for Sanctions and Request to Declare Plaintiff Vexatious. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2018) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/10/2018: #1 Exhibit 10/5/17 Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Sanctions) (kawlc1, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND REQUEST TO
DECLARE PLAINTIFF VEXATIOUS

v.
RUSSELL AINSWORTH, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 90

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17

On March 28, 2018, Defendants filed a second motion for sanctions and requested that
Plaintiff Kevin Quillinan be declared a vexatious litigant. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 90.)
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned DENIES the second motion for sanctions.
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions and requested that Plaintiff

18

Kevin Quillinan be declared a vexatious litigant. (Dkt. No. 50.) On October 5, 2018, while the

19

undersigned found it plausible that Plaintiff’s pre-filing behavior could be grounds for Rule 11

20

sanctions, the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) statute, 18

21

U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., is a complicated one, so the Court declined to impose sanctions. (Dkt. No.

22

76 at 2.) Instead, in an order filed concurrently, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice

23

against all defendants in lieu of granting leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 75; see Dkt. No. 76 at 2.) The

24

undersigned similarly denied Defendants’ request to declare Plaintiff vexatious, because

25

Defendants failed to provide sufficient information on the prior cases filed “to support the

26

conclusion that Plaintiff’s filings are so numerous or abusive that they should be enjoined.” (Dkt.

27

No. 76 at 3.) Indeed, the undersigned noted “that additional [case] information could have resulted

28

in a different outcome, so Plaintiff is advised to be more discerning in filing lawsuits going

1
2

forward.” Id. On October 5, 2017, the Court entered judgment against Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 77.)
On November 15, 2017, Defendants appealed the order denying the motion for sanctions

3

and request to declare Plaintiff vexatious. (Dkt. No. 82.) On February 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit

4

sua sponte vacated the judgment and October 5, 2017 order on the motions to dismiss and

5

remanded the case for further proceedings in light of its recent ruling in Williams v. King, 875

6

F.3d 500, 503-504 (9th Cir. 2017), which required that all parties, including unserved defendants,

7

consent in order for jurisdiction to vest with the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C §

8

636(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 85.) The Ninth Circuit’s order vacating judgment and remanding the case for

9

further proceedings also included the case number for Defendants’ appellate case. Id. While the
Ninth Circuit’s order referenced the October 5, 2017 order, of which there were two, a motion for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sanctions does not require the consent of all parties, so the undersigned assumed that the Ninth

12

Circuit was only vacating the order granting the motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. No. 86 at 3 n. 4.)

13

On March 14, 2018, the undersigned issued a report and recommendation to grant the

14

motions to dismiss with prejudice and reassigned the case to a district judge. (Dkt. No. 86.) The

15

case was reassigned to the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong. (Dkt. No. 87.)

16

On March 28, 2018, Defendants filed another motion for sanctions. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. No.

17

90.) On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a corrected opposition. (Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 96.) On April

18

18, 2018, Defendants filed a reply. (Defs.’ Reply, Dkt. No. 98.)

19

On April 11, 2018, the district court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff regarding

20

the dismissal of the unserved defendants. (Dkt. No. 97.) The district court noted that, despite the

21

undersigned’s deadline of July 10, 2017 to complete service, Plaintiff had failed to effectuate

22

service on 44 defendants. Id. The district court, therefore, ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the

23

unserved defendants should not be dismissed from the action without prejudice pursuant to

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Id. On April 24, 2018, after Plaintiff failed to timely

25

respond to the order to show cause, the district court issued an order dismissing the unserved

26

defendants without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 99.) On April 25, 2018, since all remaining parties had

27

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the district court reassigned the case back to the

28

undersigned for all purposes. (Dkt. No. 100.)
2

II.

1

INSTANT MOTION

Defendants have interpreted the Ninth Circuit’s remand as including their motion for

3

sanctions and request to declare Plaintiff vexatious, because their case number was included on the

4

remand order. In filing this motion, Defendants incorporated their prior briefing (Dkt. Nos. 50 &

5

60) and all exhibits. (Defs.’ Mot. at 5.) Despite filing another reply on April 18, 2018, Defendants

6

did not include additional information regarding Plaintiff’s behavior nor the merits of his prior

7

lawsuits, despite being previously advised that more information was needed to declare him

8

vexatious or to impose sanctions under Rule 11. Simply put, they have not met their burden.

9

Thus, even if the remand order applied to the motion for sanctions, the undersigned must again

10

deny the motion based on insufficient information, and hereby incorporates the October 5, 2017

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

order denying Defendants’ first motion for sanctions and request to declare Plaintiff vexatious

12

(Dkt. No. 76), which is attached hereto.

13
14
15

Accordingly, Defendants’ March 28, 2018 motion for sanctions and to declare Plaintiff
Kevin Quillinan a vexatious litigant is DENIED.
Notwithstanding, the Court is concerned with the rambling nature of Plaintiff’s opposition

16

to the instant motion, and he is again advised to be more discerning in filing lawsuits going

17

forward. Furthermore, Plaintiff is cautioned against filing another lawsuit concerning this incident

18

against any unserved defendants, who were dismissed without prejudice by the district court,

19

because that would likely be grounds for sanctions under Rule 11 and may result in him being

20

declared a vexatious litigant.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3