Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-2546-CM.
February 25, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On June 7, 2004, the district court granted Boeing Wichita Credit Union's (BWCU) motion to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action but denied BWCU's motion for sanctions (June 2004 Order). In denying the motion for sanctions, the court stated that the motion for sanctions could not be joined with the motion to dismiss and must be brought separately. This matter is before the court on BWCU's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 47).
As set forth in the court's June 2004 Order, the facts regarding plaintiff's suit against BWCU are as follows: Plaintiff financed the purchase of two vehicles through BWCU and, as part of that transaction, purchased credit disability insurance. Plaintiff was in default on her loans through BWCU, prompting BWCU to file a state court action to repossess the two vehicles. In response, plaintiff filed suit against BWCU and then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas. Trustee to plaintiff's bankruptcy estate filed notice of intended sale/assignment of plaintiff's claims against BWCU, which BWCU purchased for $1,500.00. Subsequently, the Bankruptcy Court ordered plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $9,450.00 to BWCU for plaintiff's repeated failures to appear at hearings in front of the Court.
To date, BWCU has collected $100.00, the proceeds of a bond on a bench warrant issued for plaintiff as a result of her failure to appear for an order in aid of execution in the state court proceeding. BWCU then filed an objection to plaintiff's discharge in bankruptcy based on her repeated failure to obey lawful orders of the court. The objection was sustained.
In its June 2004 Order, the court concluded that plaintiff was attempting to reassert her state-court claims against BWCU in the present lawsuit and ultimately held that plaintiff was no longer the real party in interest and had no standing to pursue those claims. In conjunction with the filing of its motion to dismiss, BWCU complied with the required safe-harbor requirement by sending plaintiff a letter informing her that it would seek sanctions if she did not withdraw her lawsuit against BWCU.
In this case, plaintiff has had an opportunity to litigate her claims in state court, she has filed a bankruptcy in which her claims were purchased or settled, and she has filed a previous federal court lawsuit regarding the same claims that appear to be alleged herein. At this point, plaintiff has had her day in court. Further, throughout her previous litigation experiences, plaintiff has repeatedly failed to abide by court orders and has failed to cooperate with other parties. BWCU requests that plaintiff be barred from filing further actions in federal court based on any of the claims herein.
Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under appropriate circumstances. See Judd v. Univ. of N.M., 204 F.3d 1041, 1043-45 (10th Cir. 2000); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Injunctions restricting further filings are appropriate where (1) the litigant's lengthy and abusive history is set forth; (2) the court provides guidelines as to what the litigant may do to obtain its permission to file an action; and (3) the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to oppose the court's order before it is implemented. See id. at 353-54. At this juncture, the court does not believe that an injunction is warranted. However, because plaintiff's repetitive filings must come to an end, the court cautions plaintiff that any additional frivolous and repetitious filings may result in the imposition of filing restrictions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that BWCU's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 47) is denied.