Caruso et al v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 86

ORDER granting Defendants' 81 Motion for Entry of Revised Pre-Filing Order. Stephen K. Eugster is enjoined from filing any of the following in federal or state court against the WSBA, its employees, or agents, without prior leave of thi s Court: (a) any lawsuit in federal court against the WSBA, its employees, or agents; (b) any lawsuit in a Washington State court bringing a facial challenge against Washington State's attorney bar system; and (c) any claims in federal or state court arising from one of Mr. Eugster's prior federal suits challenging Washington States bar system. This injunction applies to Mr. Eugster as a party and in his role as an attorney. In the future, if Mr. Eugster wishes to obtain leave of this Court to file such a lawsuit, he must first file a separate motion under Case No. 2:18-mc-66 RSM stating clearly what distinguishes the contemplated suit from all of his prior suits. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

ROBERT E. CARUSO and SANDRA L.
FERGUSON,

9
10

Plaintiffs,

11

Case No. C17-00003RSM
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR REVISED PRE-FILING
ORDER

v.

12

WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for a Revised Pre-Filing

17

Order against Plaintiff Robert E. Caruso’s counsel, Stephen K. Eugster. Dkt. #81. Defendants’

18

Motion is itself based on the Court’s prior Pre-Filing Order, Dkt #68,1 and on the Ninth

19
20
21

Circuit’s order vacating that Order and remanding for entry of a narrower pre-filing order
tailored to the claims or challenges that Mr. Eugster has previously brought, Dkt. #80.

22

The Ninth Circuit found that this Court “gave Eugster notice and an opportunity to be

23

heard, created an adequate record for review, and made substantive findings as to the frivolous

24
25
26
27
28

or harassing nature of Eugster’s prior actions.” Dkt. #80 at 2. This case was remanded solely
for the Court “to enter a pre-filing order that is narrowly tailored to the claims that Eugster has
previously brought.” Id. Accordingly, the Court’s determination that Mr. Eugster is a vexatious
1

The Court incorporates by reference the factual and legal findings of the Court’s prior Order, which are well
known to these parties. See Dkt. #68.

REVISED PRE-FILING ORDER - 1

1
2

litigant has been upheld on appeal, and the only task before the Court is to narrow the pre-filing
order against Mr. Eugster to the claims and challenges he has previously litigated.

3

The Court has reviewed the briefing of the parties and finds that Defendants have set

4

forth a proposed pre-filing order that properly responds to the concerns of the Ninth Circuit.

5
6
7

Mr. Eugster’s opposition challenges the conclusion of the Ninth Circuit that he is a vexatious
litigant and that there is an adequate record to enter a narrowly tailored pre-filing order. See

8

Dkt. #83 at 7-8. The Court is not going to overrule the Ninth Circuit (and its own) rulings on

9

these issues. The Court agrees with Defendants that Mr. Eugster’s arguments are “irrelevant,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

meritless, and ignore not only the record but also the prior orders from this Court and the Ninth
Circuit, only underscoring the need for a pre-filing order against him.” Dkt. #85 at 2. The
record is adequate to support this pre-filing order.
For the reasons stated in this Court’s prior Pre-Filing Order, Dkt. #68, and in satisfaction
of the Ninth Circuit’s directions on remand, Dkt. #80, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1) Stephen K. Eugster is enjoined from filing any of the following in federal or state court

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

against the WSBA, its employees, or agents, without prior leave of this Court:
a. a challenge to mandatory bar membership, see Dkt. #62-1 at 108, 440, 453; Dkt.
#62-2 at 160-61, 220, 343-46;
b. a challenge to the imposition or use of attorney license fees, see Dkt. #62-1 at
108, 441-45, 453; Dkt. #62-2 at 157-60, 197-98, 220, 343-46;
c. a challenge to lawyer discipline rules, practices, or procedures, see Dkt. #62-1 at
234, 378-79, 445, 453; Dkt. # 62-2 at 220, 345;
d. a challenge to the inclusion of limited-license practitioners as WSBA members,
see Dkt. #62-1 at 446, 453; Dkt. #62-2 at 147, 192-93, 228;

28

REVISED PRE-FILING ORDER - 2

1
2

e. a challenge to the WSBA as an alleged monopoly over the practice of law, see
Dkt. #62-2 at 225, 347-48; or

3

f. a claim arising from one of Mr. Eugster’s prior federal suits asserting such

4

challenges or claims, see Dkt. #62-1 at 293-300; Dkt. #62-2 at 17, 99, 326-35,

5
6
7

365-70.
2) In the future, if Mr. Eugster wishes to obtain leave of this Court to file such a lawsuit, he

8

must first file a separate motion under Case No. 2:18-mc-66 RSM stating clearly what

9

distinguishes the contemplated suit from all of his prior suits. He must attach a proposed

10
11
12

copy of the complaint. He must further present a short description of the legal basis for
each claim to be pursued, with brief citation to legal authorities in support. Mr. Eugster

13

may only file his proposed complaint in federal or state court if he obtains leave of this

14

Court to do so.

15
16

3) A copy of this Order shall be entered on the docket in Case No. 2:18-mc-66 RSM and
will supersede the pre-filing order previously entered.

17
18

4) Should Mr. Eugster fail to comply with the conditions of this Pre-Filing Order, he may

19

be subject to further sanctions, including but not limited to: a requirement that he post

20

adequate surety to indemnify opposing parties, monetary penalties, and punishment for

21

contempt of court.

22
23

DATED this 29 day of April 2019.

A

24
25

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

REVISED PRE-FILING ORDER - 3