UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 25, 2012
TITLE: FED. NAT'L MORTGAGE ASS'N
KOBEH ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jean P. Rosenbluth, Magistrate Judge
ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Joe Roper n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None present None present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
For the reasons discussed below, Defendant Ilia Christina Kobeh is hereby ordered to show cause why (1) the Magistrate Judge should not report and recommend to the Chief Judge that her in forma pauperis request in the pending action be denied and (2) she should not be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing future IFP requests or other papers without prepayment of the full filing fee or approval of a judge of this Court. Kobeh is ordered to comply with this OSC by (1) filing a written response to it no later than noontime, October 1, 2012, and (2) appearing in person before the Court at 2:30 p.m., October 4, 2012, in Courtroom 6A of this Court, located at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Kobeh is notified that her failure to timely and completely comply with any aspect of this OSC will result in her IFP request being denied and her being declared a vexatious litigant. No further notice will be given.
Kobeh has on at least three prior occasions, beginning in July 2012, sought to remove this state-court unlawful detainer action to this Court, and each time any IFP request she filed has been denied and the case has been remanded back to state court with an order explaining why she may not remove the case to federal court. See Case Nos. CV 12-5888-MWF-SH, CV 12-6870-UA-DUTY, and CV 12-7260-UA-DUTY.
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure bars a litigant from filing documents for improper purposes, such as delay. Nonetheless, Kobeh has thrice tried to remove the same action to federal court despite having been told repeatedly that it is improper for her to do so.
Further, because Kobeh is likely to continue to abuse the Court's process unless protective measures are taken, the Court issues this order to show cause why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to Local Rule 83-8. "[T]he goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests." Whitaker v. Superior Court of S.F., 514 U.S. 208, 210, 115 S. Ct. 1446, 1447, 131 L. Ed. 2d 324 (1995). Defendant's repetitious filing of frivolous removal actions and IFP requests has abused and misused the Court's limited resources, compromised the goal of fairly dispensing justice, and abused the judicial process. Her actions appear unlikely to stop without intervention by the Court.
cc: Chief Judge King
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.