Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated ( 2020 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Albert L Jacobs, Jr., et al., No. CV-20-01752-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Gurstel Law Firm, P.C. 17 (“Gurstel”), Loren Unger, Jesse Vassallo Lopez, and Amy Blowers (Doc. 11), to which 18 Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. (“Wheaton”) and Tamara Cook have joined1 (Doc. 15). 19 Defendants’ motion is granted for two independent reasons. 20 First, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendants’ motion. Pursuant to LRCiv 21 7.2(i), Plaintiffs’ failure to respond may be deemed consent to the granting of the motion, 22 allowing the Court to dispose of it summarily. 23 Second, LRCiv 7.2(i) notwithstanding, dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiffs’ 24 claims are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. This lawsuit is the most recent in 25 a series of redundant lawsuits that Plaintiffs have filed in both state and federal court.2 26 1 Wheaton’s and Ms. Cook’s request for oral argument is denied because oral argument will not help the Court resolve the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); LRCiv. 27 7.2(f); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 2 See, e.g., Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., No. CV-17-03967-PHX-JAT, 2018 WL 2939821 (D. Ariz. June 12, 2018) (consolidated with Case No. 2:18-cv-00181-JAT) || Particularly, following a collection lawsuit against Plaintiff Linda Jacobs brought by || Gurstel on behalf of Wheaton in which Wheaton prevailed, Plaintiffs have filed four federal || and six state lawsuits against Defendants all arising out of that collection dispute. Despite 4|| being named vexatious litigants in state court and being sanctioned (Doc. 12-8), Plaintiffs 5 || persist in filing these frivolous lawsuits. Because all three counts in Plaintiffs’ complaint 6|| either arise out of the same facts underlying the prior lawsuits (and are therefore barred by 7\| res judicata) or attempt to relitigate an issue already decided in the prior suits (and are 8 || therefore barred by collateral estoppel), dismissal is appropriate. 9 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. || The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close the case. 11 Dated this 4th day of December, 2020. 12 13 14 {Z, 15 _- Ch 16 Upited States Dictria Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 aff'd mem., Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., 788 F. App’x. 425 (9th Cir. 2019). _2-