Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 4:05 CV 00127 RCT.

• Decision Date: 24 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 4:05 CV 00127 RCT.,4:05 CV 00127 RCT.
• Citation: 434 F.Supp.2d 855
• Parties: Holli LUNDAHL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NAR INC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

434 F.Supp.2d 855

Holli LUNDAHL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NAR INC, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:05 CV 00127 RCT.

United States District Court, D. Idaho.

May 24, 2006.

Holli Lundahl, Malad, ID, pro se.

S. Walker, Malad City, ID, pro se.

Ronald Price, Salt Lake City, UT, pro se.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation.

On April 7, 2006, this Court entered an Order to Show Cause why this Court should not enter a Vexatious Litigant Order against Plaintiff Holli Lundahl ("Lundahl" or "Plaintiff"). This Court has inherent power to "`regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.'" De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir.1989)). 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) also provides this Court with the power to enjoin litigants with lengthy histories of abuse from future filings or to impose such other restrictions pre-filing as may be necessary to thwart such abuse. Id. De Long requires this Court to (1) provide the plaintiff with notice that it is considering issuing a pre-filing restriction, (2) establish an adequate record for review, (3) make substantive findings of frivolousness, and (4) tailor the breadth of the order to the particular circumstances of abuse. 912 F.2d 1144.

In response to its Order to Show Cause, which was intended to provide Plaintiff with ample notice of the imminent prefiling restriction, the Court received numerous filings from persons and parties who have been the subject of Plaintiff's abusive litigation tactics in state and federal courts throughout the western United States. The Court also received a lengthy written response from Plaintiff and held a hearing on Monday, May 15, 2006, to allow Plaintiff to orally respond to the Court's Order. After reviewing the filings in this case, Plaintiff's prior cases in this and other courts, receiving Plaintiff's sworn testimony of approximately 90 minutes in duration, and being fully informed, the Court concludes that pre-filing restrictions upon Plaintiff's future filings in this Court are justified.

As Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill has noted, Lundahl did not begin filing cases in the District of Idaho until a short time ago. See Los Angeles Home-Owners Aid, Inc. v. Lundahl, No. 05-126-e-BLW, Order Rejecting Filing (D.Idaho May 13, 2005) ("Although this case and Civil Case No. 05-128 represent[] Lundahl's first filings in the District of Idaho, her filing history in other courts is a matter of public record and shows that she is a vexatious litigant."). Yet in a very short time, Lundahl has managed to file several separate actions in this Court. The Court is aware of the following suits involving Lundahl and her associates in the District of Idaho: Los Angeles Home-Owners Aid, Inc. v. Lundahl, No. 4:05-cv-00126-BLW (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Lundahl v. NAR Inc., No. 4:05-cv-00127-RCT (pending before the Court); Lundahl v. Kunze, No. 4:05-cv-00128-BLW (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Christonson v. United States, No. 1:05-cv-00145-MHW (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and frivolity); Hurst v. Carney, No. 4:05-cv-00459-RCT (dismissed for failure to abide by local rules of procedure); Hurst v. Brown, No. 4:05-cv-00460-RCT (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); and Marchant v. Evett, No. 1:06-cv-00014-RCT (pending before the Court). Several of these cases are repetitious and the Court has serious concerns over whether venue is proper in the District of Idaho for the reasons set forth herein.

To illustrate the point, Judge Mikel H. Williams of this Court recently noted that "[i]t seems patently clear from Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' subsequent filings with the Court that Plaintiffs have filed this claim in the District of Idaho in order to circumvent prior judicial determinations made in both the California and Utah courts." Christonson v. United States, 415 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1192 (D.Idaho 2006). Further underscoring this Court's concerns, the defendants in Marchant v. Evett, No. 1:06-cv-00014-RCT, have alleged that the same claims made in Christonson have been filed against them yet again in this district. See infra.

The Court finds that the present case, Lundahl v. NAR, Inc., 4:05-cv-00127-RCT, is a blatant attempt to relitigate previously unsuccessful claims that were dismissed as frivolous in the Utah state courts. See Lundahl v. Quinn, 67 P.3d 1000, 1001 (Utah 2003) ("We deny the petition and further hold that it is frivolous."). Indeed, this suit involves an identical attempt by Lundahl to acquire her sister's cause of action by assignment to prosecute the same claims against the same defendants—NAR, Inc., Mark Olson, Olson & Associates, Anthony Tidwell, and Olympus View Dental Center—based on the same underlying facts. The only difference is that here, Lundahl has added a plaintiff, "S. Walker," who is alleged to be a resident of the State of Idaho. These claims stem from the same case in which the Supreme Court of Utah declared that "Holli [Lundahl] has chosen to make legal self-representation a full-time hobby, if not a career" and "[she] has occasionally employed the right to self-representation in a questionable manner." Id. at 1002. Lundahl's belligerent attempt to evade collateral estoppel supports the allegations below that her modus operandi is to relitigate claims in a new jurisdiction once they have been dismissed elsewhere as frivolous.

This Court also has reason to believe that Plaintiff is not a resident of Idaho, given the numerous addresses she has used in this Court and the fact that Court mail to various plaintiffs in her actions is returned as undeliverable. The Court believes that her use of Idaho post office boxes is merely another attempt to gain access to a more favorable forum for her vexatious litigation. Indeed, in her Complaint in the current case, Lundahl v. NAR, Inc., No. 4:05-cv-00127-RCT, Lundahl concedes that "Plaintiff Holli Lundahl is a resident of the [S]tate of Utah ..." (Docket No. 3-1 at 2).

In response to its request for information regarding the nature and extent of Plaintiff's vexatious litigation practices, this Court received many filings establishing that Lundahl consistently and repeatedly engages in abusive, repetitious, and meritless filings. In particular, the Court notes:

• Los Angeles Home-Owners Aid, Inc. ("LAHA"), its principals and employees, and its attorney have been the victims of Lundahl's vexatious actions in this and various other forums for years. LAHA's Response to Invitation to Submit Information Regarding Holli Lundahl's Vexatious Litigation, No. 4:05-cv-00127-RCT (D. Idaho April 20, 2006) (Docket No. 23).

• Eli Lilly and Company, Inc. ("Lilly") and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. ("ACS") have a long history of defending against Lundahl's frivolous claims in various state and federal jurisdictions. Lilly and ACS have spent over $1,000,000 in legal fees in defending against Lundahl's frivolous claims. Courts have repeatedly found the actions against Lilly and ACS to have been filed in bad faith and without merit. Lilly and ACS's Submission of Information to Court in Response to Order Filed April 7, 2006, and Notice of Hearing, Filed April 13, 2006, No. 4:05-cv-00127-RCT (D. Idaho April 28, 2006) (Docket No. 26).

• Another set of defendants has noted that "[w]hen a case is dismissed, Holli Lundahl simply re-files the same case in another court or another jurisdiction and adds many of the judges, law clerks, lawyers and others involved in the previous case as defendants." The Compton Defendants', The Strong & Hanni Defendants' and CNA's Joint Memorandum in Support of Entry of Vexatious Litigant Order Against Holli Lundahl, No. 4:05-cv-00127-RCT, at 2-3 (D.Idaho May 8, 2006) (Docket No. 28). Lundahl has filed several repeated suits in the state courts of California and Utah, in the federal courts of California, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and in the United States Supreme Court. All of these forums have rendered decisions adverse to Lundahl and most have imposed restrictions on her as a vexatious litigant. Id. at 4 n. 2.

• Yet another group of defendants states that "[o]ver the past several years, Holli Lundahl has repeatedly filed case after case against the same parties, based on the same operative facts, and alleging the same causes of action." The Elam & Burke Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Entry of Vexatious Litigant Order Against Holli Lundahl, No. 4:05cv-00127-RCT, at 2 (D.Idaho May 8, 2006) (Docket No. 29). The Elam & Burke law firm reports that its attorneys and clients were sued after they obtained relief on behalf of their client in another District of Idaho case. They state that such a practice is "consistent with Holli Lundahl's modus operandi: when she loses a case she tries to relitigate that case in a different forum rather than pursue an appeal." Id.¹

This Court has also reviewed many of the cases filed by Lundahl and her associates in other courts. As the Supreme Court of Utah has noted, Lundahl "has managed to embroil herself in more litigation in just a few short years than one would think humanly possible." Lundahl v. Quinn, 67 P.3d at 1002. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that this Court is not the first to impose filing restrictions on Lundahl. The Supreme Court of the United States, in rejecting in forma pauperis status requested by Lundahl, declared that "[a]s [Lundahl] has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and [the] petition [is] submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1." Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co., 544 U.S. 997, 997, 125 S.Ct. 1940, 161 L.Ed.2d 771 (2005).

The United States Courts of Appeals for...