HOLLYWOOD v. CARROWS CALIFORNIA FAMILY RESTAURANTS INC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Arogant HOLLYWOOD; Alison Helen Fairchild, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARROWS CALIFORNIA FAMILY RESTAURANTS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Arogant Hollywood; Alison Helen Fairchild, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Public Storage, Inc.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Arogant Hollywood, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of South Pasadena; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Arogant Hollywood; Alison Helen Fairchild, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 2200 Ontario LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55012, No. 20-55013, No. 20-55014, No. 20-55075

Decided: March 22, 2021

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Arogant Hollywood, Pro Se Alison Helen Fairchild, Pro Se Norman Benjamin Cramer, Carroll, Kelly, Trotter & Franzen, San Diego, CA, David P. Pruett, Esquire, Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McBride & Peabody, Long Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Carrows California Family Restaurants, Inc., FOod Management Partners, Inc. Norman Benjamin Cramer, Carroll, Kelly, Trotter & Franzen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Arturo Jimenez (Case no. 20-55012) Jennifer Yu Sacro, Esquire, John Walker, Sacro & Walker LLP, Glendale, CA, for Defendant-Appellee (Case no. 20-55013) David Ferrante-Alan, Esquire, Attorney, Wesierski & Zurek LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendants-Appellees (Case no. 20-55014) Hubert H. Kuo, Attorney, Ardent Law Group, P.C., Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee (Case no. 20-55075)

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Arogant Hollywood and Alison Helen Fairchild appeal pro se from the district court's order declaring them to be vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing review order against them. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Hollywood and Fairchild to be vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing review order against them after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making substantive findings as to the frivolous and harassing nature of Hollywood and Fairchild's litigation history, and narrowly tailoring the prohibition on future filings. See id. (setting forth requirements for pre-filing review orders).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Hollywood's opposed motion for an order requiring appellees to re-serve the supplemental excerpts of record is denied. All other pending motions are granted. The Clerk will file Hollywood's corrected reply brief, Hollywood's supplemental brief, Fairchild's supplemental brief, and Fairchild's reply brief.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law