# Arthur Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

> District Court, C.D. California · January 17, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036704

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** January 17, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036704

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming vexatious litigant order entered after complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- affirming prefiling order that covered “any civil complaint, habeas petition, or IFP application” but striking down provision deeming permission denied if not granted within 30 days
- noting that Safir “provides a helpful framework for applying the two substantive factors (factors three and four) of [the De Long] standard”
- noting that “Molski had tried on the merits only one of his approximately 400 suits and had settled all the others”
- holding that, before entering a vexatious litigant order, courts should “consider[] whether imposing sanctions such as costs or fees” would be “an adequate deterrent”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020

Title: ARTHUR LOPEZ v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al.

PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jazmin Dorado Not Present
Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:
None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): Order to Show Cause Why Arthur Lopez
Should Not Be Declared a Vexatious
Litigant

I. LEGAL STANDARD
The All Writs Act, coupled with federal courts “inherent power” to “regulate the
activities of abusive litigants,” authorizes district courts to enter pre-filing orders limiting the
right of vexatious litigants to file legal actions. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th
Cir. 1990). Thus, this authority exists independently of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to
decide the merits of the underlying claims. See id. at 1146-47; see also Peabody v. United
States, 263 F. App’x 560 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming vexatious litigant order entered after
complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
While courts’ authority to enter such orders should be exercised “rarely,” “[f]lagrant
abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use
of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.”
De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. The Ninth Circuit requires four factors (“the De Long factors”) be
proven before a litigant may be declared vexatious: (1) he/she must be given adequate notice and
a chance to oppose a restrictive pre-filing order before it is entered; (2) the district court must
present an adequate record for review by listing the case filings that support its order; (3) the
district court must further make substantive findings as to the frivolous nature of the filings; and
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 2

(4) the order must be narrowly tailored to remedy only the litigant’s particular abuses. Id. at
1147-49. In considering whether De Long factors three and four are met, the Ninth Circuit has
also directed district courts to consider:
 “the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed
vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits”;
 “the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an
objective good faith expectation of prevailing?”;
 “whether the litigant is represented by counsel”;
 “whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed
an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel”; and
 “whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other
parties.”
Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Safir v.
U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986)); see also Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500
F.3d 1047, 1056-62 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that Safir “provides a helpful framework for applying
the two substantive factors (factors three and four) of [the De Long] standard”).
“To decide whether the litigant’s [prior] actions are frivolous or harassing,” under the
third factor from De Long, “the district court must look at both the number and content of the
filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims. … An injunction cannot issue
merely upon a showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but
also be patently without merit.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059 (citation and quotation marks
omitted). “Frivolous litigation is not limited to cases in which a legal claim is entirely without
merit. It is also frivolous for a claimant who has some measure of a legitimate claim to …
assert[] facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false.” Id. at 1060-61. Claims might also be
deemed vexatious if the plaintiff “repeatedly assert[s] the same claims in a slightly altered
guise,” “use[s] the courts to block and hinder various business transactions of the defendants,”
and/or uses “senseless and unduly burdensome” litigation tactics. Safir, 792 F.2d at 24.
It appears that a vexatious litigant order need not rely only on prior lawsuits that were
expressly dismissed as frivolous. For example, in Molski, the Ninth Circuit upheld a vexatious
litigant order that was based on a finding that the litigant had “harassed defendants into cash
settlements….” 500 F.3d at 1059-60; see also id. at 1052 (noting that “Molski had tried on the
merits only one of his approximately 400 suits and had settled all the others”).
Additionally, the Central District of California’s Local Rules provide in relevant part:
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 3

On its own motion or on motion of a party, after opportunity to be heard,
the Court may, at any time, order a party to give security in such amount as the
Court determines to be appropriate to secure the payment of any costs, sanctions
or other amounts which may be awarded against a vexatious litigant, and may
make such other orders as are appropriate to control the conduct of a vexatious
litigant. Such orders may include, without limitation, a directive to the Clerk not
to accept further filings from the litigant without payment of normal filing fees
and/or without written authorization from a judge of the Court or a Magistrate
Judge, issued upon such showing of the evidence supporting the claim as the
judge may require.
… Any [such] order … shall be based on a finding that the litigant to
whom the order is issued has abused the Court’s process and is likely to continue
such abuse, unless protective measures are taken.
Local Rules 83-8.2, 83-8.3.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Notice and a Chance to Respond
Regarding De Long factor one, responding to this Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) is Mr.
Lopez’s opportunity to be heard and oppose entry of a restrictive, pre-filing order.
B. Frivolous Nature of the Prior Actions
Regarding De Long factors two and three, the following filings by Mr. Lopez in this
Court appear to be frivolous and/or abusive:
Case No. Title Summary of Allegations Disposition
1 13-0897 Lopez v. In June 2012, a private In forma pauperis (“IFP”)
Our Lady school did not admit his application was denied and
Queen of children because of action dismissed because a
Angels discrimination on the basis non-attorney guardian for
Catholic of sex, religion, race, and minors must have counsel
School disability, as well as in under Local Rule 83-2.2.1.
retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment. Lopez
admitted that the school
cited class size and his
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 4

failure to timely pay tuition
as reasons for the non-
admission.
2 13-1445 Lopez v. During the 2012-13 school IFP was denied based on an
Newport year, public school staff, inadequate showing of
Elementary PTA members, and “local indigency.
School real estate agencies with …
ties to” the school
discriminated against Lopez
and his family on the basis
of sex, race, and religion in
various ways, e.g.,
disciplining Lopez’s son;
failing to comply with a
doctor’s note about his son;
acting “hostile” towards
Lopez; failing to hire any
full-time male teachers; and
choosing not to rent property
to Lopez’s family.
3 13-1800 Lopez v. Same allegations as in case Action was dismissed for
Newport no. 13-1445, realleged in a lack of prosecution after
Elementary new action where Lopez about 9 months passed
School paid the filing fee. without service on
defendants; dismissal was
affirmed on appeal.
4 14-1785 Lopez v. Hotel denied Lopez’s family IFP was denied and the
Newport housing after they “had action dismissed because the
Dunes resided [there] for claims were too vague to
Waterfront approximately 1 year under establish federal jurisdiction
Resort constant discrimination” on or state a valid claim for
the basis of sex, race, relief.
religion and speech.
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 5

5 15-1354 Lopez v. Between 2007 and 2012, the Defendants’ motion to
MUFG defendant banks stole dismiss was granted because
Union Bank Lopez’s trade secrets related most of the claims were
to his auto-finance business; barred by res judicata
declined his business loan (Orange County Superior
application; and foreclosed Court case no. 30-2012-
on his home. These actions 00565003) and the other
were fraudulent, violated allegations failed to a state
various consumer protection claim; dismissal affirmed on
statutes, were in retaliation appeal.
for his reporting of the
bank’s illegal practices, and
were racially discriminatory.
6 16-2267 Lopez v. Initial complaint alleged that After he was given several
Newport police failed to act on chances to amend, IFP status
Beach Police “repeated requests” to press was denied and the action
Dept. charges against his ex-wife dismissed for failure to state
for domestic violence for a a claim and based on
2015 incident in which immunity; the court noted
Lopez was charged with that Lopez had “regularly –
domestic violence. He and generally without
alleged that this was success – pursued similar
discriminatory on the basis civil rights actions against
of sex, race, and religion. local agencies in this Court,”
He asked the court to award listing his prior actions. He
him custody of his children, filed multiple interlocutory
dismiss all state criminal appeals, which where
charges, and award dismissed.
damages. Later iterations of
the complaint also alleged
that police had improperly
allowed his ex-wife to
possess his Lexus and
complained about the bail
set after his 2015 arrest.
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 6

7 17-0297 Lopez v. In February 2015, police Summary judgment was
Costa Mesa conducted an illegal traffic granted for defendants
Police Dept. stop and search and because the undisputed
discriminated against him evidence showed that Lopez
based on sex, religion, and made an illegal turn over a
race. median and that his car had
been unregistered and
underinsured for nearly a
year. Lopez filed multiple
improper interlocutory
appeals; his final appeal
remains pending (case no.
18-55520).
8 17-0488 Lopez v. In 2016, police arrested him On IFP screening: claims
Newport for violating a restraining against city and police
Beach Police order, which was a “bogus department were dismissed
Dept. charge created … with the for failure to allege policy or
assistance” of his ex-wife. custom; discrimination
He brought “claims of claims were dismissed as
malicious prosecution / false conclusory; and malicious
arrest / false imprisonment” prosecution and false arrest
and discrimination on the claims against investigating
basis of sex, race, and officer were allowed to
religion. proceed. Summary judgment
was granted for the officer
because there was probable
cause for arrest and
prosecution.
Lopez filed multiple appeals
from non-appealable orders;
his final appeal remains
pending (case no. 18-56452).
Lopez was ordered to pay
sanctions for failing to
appear at a status conference.
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 7

9 17-0496 Lopez v. In January 2012, tow Dismissed (a) as time-barred
Tustin Police company put diesel fuel in with no equitable tolling for
Dept. Plaintiff’s gas car, damaging 2013 state court action on the
it; police officers who called same facts that was
the tow company and dismissed for lack of
company employees prosecution (Orange County
discriminated against him on Superior Court case no. 30-
the basis of sex, race, and 2013-00622173); and (b) for
religion; this and other failure to state a claim
negative interactions with because no facts supported
police showed broad Lopez’s claim that
conspiracy against him by defendants acted with
senior officials at various discriminatory intent; appeal
Orange County police was found frivolous.
agencies.
10 17-0752 Lopez v. Police discriminated against IFP denied and action
Irvine Police him on the basis of sex, race, dismissed because
Dept. and religion when they: (a) allegations of
(a) removed his son from his discrimination in 2015
car during an April 2011 incident were conclusory;
traffic stop, citing the lack of and (b) claims based on 2011
a booster seat; and (b) in incident were untimely;
November 2015, refused to Court noted Lopez’s
give Lopez back a car that “numerous similar frivolous
had been improperly given complaints filed in recent
to his ex-wife (see case no. months in this district.”
16-2267). Multiple appeals were found
frivolous.
11 17-0845 Lopez v. Police and school district IFP denied and action
Newport conspired to discriminate dismissed after leave to
Beach Police against him on the basis of amend, because Lopez
Dept. sex, race, and religion and “fail[ed] to allege any
violate his “First, Fourth, understandable set of facts
Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth showing plausible
Amendment rights.” In constitutional violation or
2015, school refused to
enroll his son after his
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 8

disruptive (according to discrimination”; appeal was
school) conversation with found frivolous.
police in school parking lot
about discrimination against
him and his son; police did
not act on his complaints
and helped school “cover
up.”
12 17-1466 Lopez v. Same as 15-1354 (between Dismissed on defendants’
MUFG 2007 and 2012, bank stole motion because claims were
Union Bank trade secrets, declined barred by res judicata;
business loan application, affirmed on appeal.
and foreclosed on home).
13 17-1470 Lopez v. Plaintiff fell at federal Summary judgment for
United courthouse and brought defendants because Lopez
States negligence claim under the did not rebut defense expert’s
Federal Tort Claims Act. opinion that court walkway
was not dangerous; appeal
pending (case no. 19-55162).
14 17-2038 Lopez v. State, governor, county, and IFP denied and action
California county employee violated dismissed for failure to state
his First, Fourth, Fifth, a claim because complaint
Eighth and Fourteenth was a “rambling,
Amendment rights in unintelligible rant” against
various ways, e.g.: EEOC government officials; court
declined to pursue his noted that Lopez’s “nearly 20
religious discrimination actions raise issue of whether
claims against his employer; he is a vexatious litigant or
state failed to provide him approaching threshold.”
with qualified pro bono Appeal was found frivolous.
counsel for his civil rights
cases; state court judge
would not let him discharge
his public defender in a 2015
criminal case; every local
government entity he has
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 9

interacted with (e.g., DMV,
child support office, and
probation office) has
conspired to violate his civil
rights.
15 17-2163 Lopez v. Same as 17-0297 (in IFP denied and action
Costa Mesa February 2015, police dismissed as untimely;
Police Dept. conducted an illegal traffic Lopez’s claim that he
stop and search and “‘recently discovered’
discriminated against him alleged collusion by senior
based on his sex, religion, police personnel in Orange
and race) County” was “belied by [his]
minimal and conclusory
allegations”; appeal was
found frivolous.
16 17-2165 Lopez v. Same as 17-0488 (in 2016, IFP denied and action
Newport police wrongfully harassed dismissed for failure to state
Beach Police and arrested him after ex- a claim and “[b]ecause of the
Dept. wife accused him of frequency and nature of
violating restraining order); [Lopez’s] frivolous actions in
alleging that city and county this district”; court noted that
“systematically [and] allegations were “rambling,”
routinely train” their “largely unintelligible,” and
employees to discriminate stated “no coherent civil
against Latinos, Catholics, rights violation[s] beyond
and males. that which the Court green-
lighted against one individual
officer … in the 17-0488
action”; appeal was found
frivolous.
17 17-2379 Lopez v. In November 2017, police Summary judgment for
Corona unlawfully towed his car defendants because car was
Police Dept. when it was parked on the not properly registered and
street near his house. was blocking neighbor’s
driveway; Lopez ordered to
pay Rule 11 sanctions “for
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 10

knowingly submitting a
materially doctored
document,” i.e., a DMV
receipt, to try to prove the car
was properly registered.
Appeal was dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
18 18-0032 Lopez v. Police, city, ticket IFP denied and action
Santa Ana processing center, and dismissed under Rooker-
Police Dept. judicial council violated due Feldman doctrine and
process and equal protection because civil rights claims
by only permitting were “unintelligible.”
challenges to traffic citations
via mail and improperly
dismissing and/or processing
his civil action in state court.
19 18-0093 Lopez v. Irvine Co. entities refused to Defendants’ motion to
The Irvine rent him an apartment dismiss was granted;
Co. because of his race, which constitutional claim was
violated his constitutional dismissed because
rights and the federal Fair defendants were not state
Housing Act, and was an actors; Fair Housing Act
unfair business practice claim was dismissed as time-
under California law. barred; court declined to
exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state-law
claim; appeal was found
frivolous.
20 18-1144 In re Lopez Appeal from bankruptcy IFP denied and appeal
court orders entered in 2011 dismissed as untimely and
and 2012, which Lopez frivolous; appeal to 9th
contended violated his equal Circuit also dismissed as
protection and due process frivolous
rights
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 11

21 18-1145 In re Lopez Same Dismissed as untimely;
appeal to 9th Circuit also
dismissed as frivolous
22 18-1154 In re Lopez Same Dismissed as untimely;
appeal to 9th Circuit also
dismissed as frivolous
23 18-1240 In re Lopez Same Dismissed as untimely;
appeal to 9th Circuit also
dismissed as frivolous
24 19-1143 Lopez v. Civil rights claims against IFP denied and action
Superior the state and the local state dismissed after Lopez was
Court trial court, as well as a given a chance to amend;
multitude of former allegations were
employers, state agencies, “unintelligible and frivolous”
family members, law and/or barred by Eleventh
enforcement agencies, and Amendment immunity.
national political figures.
25 19-1816 Lopez v. Claims under various federal IFP denied and action
HSBC Bank, consumer protection statutes dismissed for failure to state
et al. against banks who a claim because Lopez failed
foreclosed on his mother’s to allege facts showing he
home in 2018, and against was a borrower on the loan
former FBI director James and because the allegations
Comey, who Lopez alleged against Comey were
failed to investigate Lopez’s “fanciful.”
civil rights complaints

This list contains multiple cases against judges, courts, and prosecutors who are immune
from suit. It contains multiple cases against government entities and/or employees alleging that
they violated Mr. Lopez’s civil rights by doing nothing more than failing to act on his complaints
or siding with his ex-wife. In multiple cases, Mr. Lopez alleged that banks, school staff, and/or
police officers took actions that otherwise appear lawful because they were motived to
discriminate against men, Hispanics, and/or Catholics, without alleging any facts suggesting a
discriminatory motive. The cases describe implausible conspiracies, assert time-barred claims,
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 12

repeat previously dismissed claims, seek exaggerated damages, and are replete with procedurally
improper and/or frivolous appeals.
C. Narrowly Tailored Remedy
Regarding De Long factor four, previous attempts to sanction Mr. Lopez—by ordering
him to pay costs under Rule 11, dismissing his actions, and noting the many unmeritorious cases
he had filed in this district—appear to have had no deterrent effect. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761
F.3d at 1065-66 (holding that, before entering a vexatious litigant order, courts should
“consider[] whether imposing sanctions such as costs or fees” would be “an adequate deterrent”).
Moreover, it appears that an appropriate pre-filing order may be crafted that is narrowly
tailored to Mr. Lopez’s vexatious behavior. The Court’s proposed pre-filing order would require
Mr. Lopez to obtain pre-filing approval from a District Judge of this Court prior to filing any
civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that:
(1) brings any claim against any public entity or public employee (including but
not limited to schools, police officers, police departments, cities, counties, courts,
judges, and judicial employees);
(2) alleges that any person or entity (whether public or private) discriminated
against Mr. Lopez or his family members on the basis of sex, race, or religion; or
(3) brings any claim against MUFG Union Bank, N.A., MUFG Americas
Holdings Corporation, Union Bank, N.A., or Union BanCal Corporation (i.e., the
defendants named in case nos. 15-1354 and 17-1466).
See, e.g., Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061 (approving order requiring vexatious litigant to obtain
preapproval for “actions under Title III of the ADA in the Central District of California”);
Endsley v. California ex rel. Brown, 627 F. App’x 644, 645 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming prefiling
order that covered “any civil complaint, habeas petition, or IFP application” but striking down
provision deeming permission denied if not granted within 30 days); Boustred v. Gov’t, No. 08-
00546, 2008 WL 4287570, at *3, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111090, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17,
2008) (requiring vexatious litigant to “obtain leave of court before filing any further suits
alleging any ‘civil rights’ claims or conspiracy claims involving parties that he named in this
current case or [two specific cases] previously filed in this court”)
//
//
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01816-JFW-KESx Date: January 17, 2020
Page 13

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before February 18,
2020, Mr. Lopez shall show cause in writing, if any he has, why he should not be declared a
vexatious litigant and why the Court should not enter the pre-filing order described above.

Initials of Deputy Clerk JD

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10036704. Public record. Not legal advice.