Ioane, et al v. County of Santa Clar, et al

Filing 210

ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO FILE PURSUANT TO PRE-FILING ORDER re 209 Proposed Order, filed by Michael S. Ioane, Sr. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/14/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

IN RE:
MICHAEL S. IOANE, SR.
Debtor.

8

CASE NO. 99-CV-21119-SW
Bankruptcy Court Case No. 98-57226-SLJ
ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO FILE
PURSUANT TO PRE-FILING ORDER

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Debtor Michael S. Ioane, Sr., acting pro se, filed a Motion to Reopen in his prior

12

bankruptcy case, No. 98-57226-SLJ, seeking to present his arguments about a violation of the

13

automatic bankruptcy stay pertaining to a nonjudicial foreclosure of real property (“the Blue Gum

14

Property”) that occurred in August 1998.

15

On August 25, 2000, in the case of Michael and Shelly Ioane, and Paradise Solutions, v

16

Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, et al., Northern District of California Case No. 99-

17

21119-SW, District Judge Spencer Williams dismissed the action therein and issued an Order to

18

Show Cause on Plaintiffs Why the Sanction of Pre-Filing Review Should Not Be Granted. (Id. at

19

Dkt. No. 167 [“the OSC”].) The OSC detailed many actions Mr. Ioane had undertaken in the

20

district court, the state court, and the bankruptcy court concerning his loss of title to the Blue Gum

21

Property.

22

On September 26, 2000, District Judge Spencer Williams entered an Order Imposing

23

Sanction of Pre-Filing Review on Michael Ioane and Shelly Olson, aka Shelly Ioane (Case No. 99-

24

cv-21119-SW, Dkt. No. 171 [“Prefiling Order”].) The Prefiling Order requires Mr. Ioane to

25

obtain permission prior to filing any new lawsuit, including “every complaint, petition,

26

application, or request he files in this district,” except for those filed before the date of entry of the

27

Prefiling Order. (Id. at 2 [“This Order does not apply to any lawsuit filed before September 26,

28

2000.”].)

1

Pursuant to the Prefiling Order, the Court DENIES Mr. Ioane permission to file the Motion

2

to Reopen. Notwithstanding its caption, Mr. Ioane’s motion is a new adversary proceeding in a

3

closed bankruptcy case, and therefore a new “complaint, petition, application, or request” filed

4

after the issuance of the Prefiling Order.1

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2021
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court further notes that the bankruptcy court Order of April 8, 2021 issued by U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Stephen L. Johnson denied the motion to reopen on its merits, notwithstanding
Mr. Ioane’s failure to obtain permission to file the Motion to Reopen. (See Northern District of
California Bankruptcy Court Case No. 98-57226, Dkt. No. 152.)
2