Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rejeanne BERNIER; Hans S. Croteau, as individuals, and as members of a similarly situated class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ricardo LARA, in his capacity as California Insurance Commissioner; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Rejeanne Bernier and Hans S. Croteau appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing their action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant pre-filing order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ action because the complaint was within the scope of the pre-filing order and plaintiffs failed to comply with the pre-filing requirements. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation․ Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that support the merits of the case.”).
To the extent that plaintiffs seek to challenge the underlying pre-filing order, we do not consider their contentions because such a challenge is outside the scope of this appeal.
Plaintiffs’ motion to take judicial notice, and request set forth in the opening brief for reassignment to a different district court judge on remand, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
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.
Docket No: No. 20-55160
Decided: June 30, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)