The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, U.S. District Judge
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND OTHER ISSUES
Plaintiffs Anthony Martini and Annette Martini ("Plaintiffs") filed this action against several Defendants. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for a Change of Venue ("Motion").
The Court, in its September 18, 2009 Order ("September 18 Order"), ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why their Complaint does not violate Rule 11. In the September 18 Order, the Court noted that Anthony Martini had filed multiple lawsuit. Concerning Plaintiffs' current lawsuit, the Court recognized that
Plaintiffs' Complaint makes highly doubtful assertions. For instance, the Complaint states that Defendants are government workers that "are current and active Members of the Terrorist Group Bilderberg, Freemasonry or Freemasons, [and/or] Skull and Bones" that continuously conspired to have Plaintiffs murdered. (Compl. ¶¶ 48; 60-93.) Before the many individual Defendants are forced to respond to these very
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
serious and doubtful allegations, Plaintiffs should be required to show that their allegations have merit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) ("On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct . . . has not violated Rule 11(b).")
(September 18 Order.) Plaintiffs appeared and failed to justify the allegations in their Complaint. The Court will give Plaintiffs another opportunity to do so. The Court has continually tried to assist Plaintiffs by describing how defects in their pleadings may be cured, and it will continue to do so.
Further, the Court recognizes that Anthony Martini's filings in this case and others have repeatedly burdened other individuals with meritless or highly doubtful claims. Martini filed a case in this Court, Martini v. AT&T, SACV 08-0294, where he was given four chances to submit a viable Complaint. "Each time, Plaintiff . . . failed to state a claim." (SACV 08-0294, Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, at 1, February 23, 2009.) Thus, Martini v. AT&T was dismissed without leave to amend.
Martini also filed Martini v. GoDaddy.com, SACV 08-0799. There, he was given three chances to submit pleadings that include "specific facts that tie his theories of wrongdoing to his legal claims." (SACV 08-0799, March 16, 2009 Order at 8; Dec. 23, 2008 Order at 2; Oct. 20, 2008 Order at 4.) Each time, Martini was unable to state a single viable claim for relief. The Court dismissed Martini v. GoDaddy.com, again without leave to amend.
Under the Central District of California's Local Rules, "[o]n its own motion or on motion of a party, after opportunity to be heard, the Court may, at any time, . . . make such . . . orders as are appropriate to control the conduct of a vexatious litigant." L.R. 83-8.2. Plaintiffs' filings raise concerns that an appropriate order under Local Rule 83 is warranted.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to appear on November 2, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. and show cause (1) why their Motion should be granted, (2) why the Complaint does not violate Rule 11(b), and (3) whether Plaintiff Anthony Martini should be declared a vexatious litigant. At the November 2, 2009 hearing, the Court may also consider how this matter may be handled in a manner that ...