Holdner v. Krietzberg et al
Filing
36
Opinion and Order. I ADOPT Judge Browns recommendations 35 and DISMISS with prejudice Mr. Holdners Second and Third claims for relief, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. I also ORDER that a prefiling order against Mr. Holdner be entered in this case. Signed on 3/17/20 by Judge Michael W. Mosman.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 3/17/20.) (sb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
WILLIAM F. HOLDNER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01054-AC
v.
RICHARD A. KRIETZBERG; STEVEN
KRIETZBERG; AMY E. MITCHELL,
Trustee; and JUSTIN D. LEONARD,
Attorney,
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
This case comes before me by way of a Memorandum Opinion and Report and
Recommendation from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Trish M. Brown. [ECF 35] (“Opinion &
Report”). In her Opinion & Report, Judge Brown made two recommendations: (1) that this court
withdraw its referral of two of Mr. Holdner’s claims, and (2) that I designate Mr. Holdner as a
vexatious litigant for purposes of further proceedings against these defendants. Id. at 16-18, 36. I
agree with Judge Brown’s assessment, and I adopt both of her recommendations.
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
I.
Mr. Holdner’s Second and Third Claims for Relief
Mr. Holdner originally filed his complaint in this court. [ECF 1]. He asserted four claims
for relief: Misrepresentation in the Purchase of Shares, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary
Duty (Kreitzberg Defendants), and Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Ms. Mitchell & Mr. Leonard). Id.
at 11-13. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), in
which he recommended that Mr. Holdner’s claims for misrepresentation, breach of contract, and
breach of fiduciary duty (Mitchell & Leonard) be referred to the bankruptcy court and that his
claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Kreitzberg Defendants be dismissed. F&R
[ECF 24] at 2. I adopted Judge Acosta’s F&R in full and referred Mr. Holdner’s claims to the
bankruptcy court. Order of Referral [ECF 27].
Mr. Holdner filed a virtually identical complaint in Bankruptcy Court, in which he
renewed all four claims for relief. First Am. Compl. at 12-14, Holdner v. Kreitzberg et al., Adv.
Pro. No. 19-3028-tmb (Bankr. D. Or. May 13, 2019) [ECF 16]. Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss each of Mr. Holdner’s claims. Holdner v. Kreitzberg et al., Adv. Pro. No. 19-3028-tmb
(Bankr. D. Or. June 7, 2019) [ECF 19]. Judge Brown ruled on that motion in her Opinion &
Report. [55] at 10-19. Judge Brown issued dispositive rulings on two of those claims:
misrepresentation in the purchase of shares (Claim One) and breach of fiduciary duties (estate
professionals) (Claim Four). Id. at 15-17, 18-19.
On the other two claims, for breach of contract (Claim Two) and breach of fiduciary
duties (Kreitzberg Defendants) (Claim Three), Judge Brown issued recommendations to this
court because she found that both claims fell outside her jurisdiction as the Bankruptcy Court. Id.
at 16-18. She recommended that this court withdraw its reference of both claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 157(d) and L-R 2100-4. Id. On Claim Two, she recommended that this court enter
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
judgment in favor of the Defendants because Mr. Holdner lacks standing to bring a claim for
breach of contract, as there is no record that he entered into a contract with these defendants. Id.
I agree with Judge Brown. I withdraw my reference to Mr. Holdner’s second and third
claims for relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d)1 and LR 2100-4.2
For the reasons stated in Judge Brown’s Opinion & Report, I find that Mr. Holdner’s
second claim for relief—breach of contract—fails to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
Opinion & Report [35] at 16-17. I therefore DISMISS this claim with prejudice.
As for Mr. Holdner’s third claim for relief, I find that it should be dismissed for the same
reasons originally provided in Judge Acosta’s F&R. [24] at 7-8. Mr. Holdner’s renewed claim
does not improve on his original pleading, and as before, it fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). I therefore DISMISS this claim with prejudice.
II.
Vexatious Litigant Designation
I also agree with Judge Brown that Mr. Holdner should be designated as a vexatious
litigant and that a prefiling order should be entered in this case. Opinion & Report [35] at 36. I
will issue that order separate from this opinion, and it will conform to the same terms adopted by
Judge Brown in the Bankruptcy Court. Id. at 34-36 (describing the terms of her prefiling order).
1
28 U.S.C. § 157(d) provides that:
The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding
referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for
cause shown. The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a
proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires
consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating
organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.
2
Local Rule 2100-4 provides that: “In addition to the statutory provisions relating to
withdrawal of reference, a case, or any portion thereof, may be withdrawn on recommendation of
a bankruptcy judge.”
3 – OPINION AND ORDER
CONCLUSION
I ADOPT Judge Brown’s recommendations [35] and DISMISS with prejudice Mr.
Holdner’s Second and Third claims for relief, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. I also
ORDER that a prefiling order against Mr. Holdner be entered in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17 day of March, 2020.
w.
~
~~
____________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge
4 – OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?