The opinion
Case 2:22-cv-00079-RGK Document 64 Filed 04/22/22 Page1lof4 Page ID#:2700
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-00079-RGK Date April 22, 2022
Title Benjamin Woodhouse, et al. v. The United States Government, et al.
Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Defendants’ Motion for Relief from
Vexatious Litigant [DE 41]
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 7, 2022, Benjamin Woodhouse (“Woodhouse”) and Havensight Capital, LLC!
(“Havensight”) filed a First Amended Complaint against several judges of the Central District of
California” (the “Judicial Defendants”) and United States Government officials? (the “Government
Defendants”). (ECF No. 10.) The FAC also names as defendants Gibson Dunn Inc.*, Meta Platforms
Inc., Nike Inc. (the “Protected Defendants”) and Alphabet, Inc. (/d.) Presently before the Court is the
Protected Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Vexatious Litigant (ECF No. 41.). Further, for the reasons
explained below, the Court Orders Woodhouse to Show Cause in writing as to why the Judicial
Defendants and Government Defendants should not be dismissed, and why sanctions should not issue
against Woodhouse.
1 Havensight is purportedly represented by Woodhouse. In a nearly-identical prior lawsuit, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld found
Havensight to be Woodhouse’s alter-ego because Woodhouse treats the company “as indistinguishable from himself,” and in
filings he “confirm[ed] their unity of interest by asking the Court to reopen ‘all cases involving the Plaintiff, its Havensight
Capital L.L.C. Firm, and these conflicted Defendants.” See Woodhouse v. U.S. Gov't, 2021 WL 6333468, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
Nov. 24, 2021.) Having examined the dockets in this and related matters, the Court agrees with Judge Blumenfeld’s finding.
? The defendant judges are: (1) the Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.; (2) the Hon. Fernando Olguin; (3) the Hon. Manuel Real:
(4) the Hon. Otis Wright; and (5) the Hon. Philip Gutierrez.
3 The defendant U.S. Government officials are employees of the Department of Justice, including: (1) Daniel Beck; (2) Tracy
Wilkison: (3) David Harris; and (4) Joanne Osinoff.
* Woodhouse seemingly intended to sue Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. as that law firm has represented Nike, Inc. and Meta
Platforms, Inc. in prior actions.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 4
Case 2:22-cv-00079-RGK Document 64 Filed 04/22/22 Page2of4 Page ID#:2701
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-00079-RGK Date April 22, 2022
Title Benjamin Woodhouse, et al. v. The United States Government, et al.
Il. VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Woodhouse is an attorney who is licensed to practice in California. Woodhouse and his alter-ego
Havensight have been declared vexatious litigants in three prior Central District of California cases. See
Havensight Cap. LLC v. Nike, Inc., 2015 WL 3544111 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2015); Havensight Cap. LLC
v. Facebook, Inc., 2018 WL 6340757 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2018), aff'd 776 F. App’x 420 (9th Cir. 2019);
Woodhouse v. U.S. Gov’t, 2021 WL 6333468 at *5—6. Most recently, Judge Blumenfeld ordered that
Woodhouse be precluded:
“either directly or indirectly through an entity he owns or controls—from
filing in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(CDCA) any action for claims described below against Nike, Inc.,
Facebook, Inc., and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and each of their
respective employees, directors, officers, attorneys, or partners (the
Protected Parties), absent strict compliance with the terms set forth in this
paragraph. Specifically, Plaintiff shall: (1) obtain written authorization from
a CDCA District or Magistrate Judge prior to filing any lawsuit in the
CDCA against the Protected Parties for claims asserting government
corruption or conspiracies or any issues or allegations raised in previous
litigation in which Havensight was declared a vexatious litigant, including
online advertisements, unfair business practices, anticompetitive conduct,
breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, infringement of
intellectual property, fraud, tortious conduct, negligence, or racketeering;
and (2) deposit $5,000 with the clerk of the court to secure payment of any
costs, sanctions, or other amounts that may be awarded against Plaintiff.
Woodhouse v. U.S. Gov’t, 2021 WL 6333468 at *8.
Woodhouse’s claims against the Protected Defendants fall squarely within the ambit of Judge
Blumenfeld’s vexatious litigant order. Woodhouse accuses the Protected Defendants of being involved
in various conspiracies to commit felonies such as “produc[ing] disseminated discovery in the pre
discovery period” and collusion between the U.S. Attorney and the Protected Defendants. (FAC at 1-2,
ECF No. 10.) The causes of action he alleges are “obstruction and due process violations,” “fraud and
collusion,” and “intentional interference with prospective business and economic relations.” (See
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 4
Case 2:22-cv-00079-RGK Document 64 Filed 04/22/22 Page3of4 Page ID #:2702
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-00079-RGK Date April 22, 2022
Title Benjamin Woodhouse, et al. v. The United States Government, et al.
generally id.) He requests that the Court “dissolve the [Protected Defendants] and Alphabet Inc. and
award U.S. $3 Trillion . . . to Plaintiff.” (/d. at 30.)°
Woodhouse filed this action without written authorization from a Central District of California
judge and without posting $5,000 with the clerk of the court, in clear violation of Judge Blumenfeld’s
order. Therefore, because the Court finds that the claims against Protected Defendants clearly fall within
the bounds of the vexatious litigant order, the Court DISMISSES the Protected Defendants with
prejudice. See Menez-Valenzuela v. Arizona, 436 Fed. App’x 827, 828 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The district
court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because Mendez-Valenzuela failed to comply
with the vexatious litigant orders entered against her.”)
Il. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, QUALIFIED IMMUNITY,
AND SANCTIONS
There are three other issues for the Court to address at this time. First, it appears as if all Judicial
Defendants are protected by judicial immunity, as “[j Judges are absolutely immune from suits for money
damages for acts performed in their official capacities.” Haywood v. Hawkins, 2002 WL 35656295, at
*2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2002). Such immunity applies “however erroneous the act may have been.”
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). The protection is not stripped due to allegations
of bad faith or malice. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).
Second, the Government Defendants—Beck, Wilkison, Harris, and Osinoff—appear to be
protected by qualified immunity, which protects government officials when “their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).
Third, the Protected Defendants note that Woodhouse—either as himself or as Havensight— has
repeatedly violated vexatious litigant orders since 2015. They request that the Court refer Woodhouse to
the State Bar of California and the Standing Committee on Discipline. They also request monetary
> The Court further notes that Woodhouse filed a complaint nearly identical to the FAC here on January 13, 2022—a mere
eight days after he filed the instant action. See Woodhouse v. U.S. Gov't, Case No. 2:22-cv-00285-CAS, Dkt. No. 1
(“Woodhouse IT’). Woodhouse I was assigned to Judge Christina Snyder. Judge Snyder referred the Woodhouse IT complaint
to Judge Blumenfeld for a determination as to whether the claims against Protected Defendants fell within his vexatious
litigant order. Judge Blumenfeld determined that they did. See Woodhouse v. U.S. Gov’t, Case No. 2:21-cv-06372-SB, Dtk.
No. 81 at 4.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 4
Case 2:22-cv-00079-RGK Document 64 Filed 04/22/22 Page4of4 Page ID #:2703
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:22-cv-00079-RGK Date April 22, 2022
Title Benjamin Woodhouse, et al. v. The United States Government, et al.
sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.° It appears to the Court, based on its review of the dockets of
Woodhouse’s numerous lawsuits in this District, that such sanctions are warranted.
In accordance with the above, Woodhouse is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by
May 6, 2022 why:
e The Judicial Defendants should not be dismissed due to judicial immunity;
e The Government Defendants should not be dismissed due to qualified immunity; and
e The Court should not refer Woodhouse to the State Bar of California, the Standing
Committee on Discipline, and impose monetary sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer jre/a
§ “Any attommey .. who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court
to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 4 of 4