Summary
The Central District of California summarily dismissed Alison Helen Fairchild’s action without prejudice. The court found that Fairchild violated a prior vexatious-litigant order by filing related claims in the Northern District of California to avoid the filing restrictions, and that venue was clearly appropriate in the Central District. The dismissal was entered on March 13, 2025.
Holdings
- A plaintiff may not circumvent a Central District vexatious-litigant order by initiating in a neighboring district claims that arise in the Central District, particularly where venue is clearly appropriate in the Central District.
- The action was summarily dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff deliberately filed in the Northern District to evade the Central District vexatious-litigant order.
Questions Presented
- Whether a plaintiff subject to a Central District vexatious-litigant filing restriction may circumvent that restriction by filing claims arising in the Central District in a neighboring federal district.
- Whether the action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice after transfer to the Central District where venue was appropriate there and the filing was designed to evade the prior vexatious-litigant order.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (5)
- Hollywood and Fairchild v. Carrows California Family Restaurants et al., No. 2:18-CV-2098 JGB (GLS) (C.D. Cal.)(applied)
- Fairchild v. Han et al., No. 3:24-cv-6877 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 30, 2024)(procedural history)
- Greene v. Alhambra Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 215CV00451JADNJK, 2016 WL 3176596, at *1, *5 (D. Nev. May 17, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 215CV00451JADNJK, 2016 WL 3148389 (D. Nev. June 2, 2016)(followed)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth Hosp. LLC, No. 224CV00590RFBNJK, 2024 WL 1554239, at *1 n.2 (D. Nev. Apr. 10, 2024)(followed)
- Magee v. Clark, No. CV 09-5784-ABC (RC), 2009 WL 2488040, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2009)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…