Arogant Hollywood v. Carrows Cal. Fam. Rest., Inc. ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON No. 20-55012
HELEN FAIRCHILD,
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02098-JGB-GJS
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CARROWS CALIFORNIA FAMILY
RESTAURANTS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON No. 20-55013
HELEN FAIRCHILD,
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01822-JGB-GJS
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
AROGANT HOLLYWOOD, No. 20-55014
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05607-JGB-GJS
v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
AROGANT HOLLYWOOD; ALISON No. 20-55075
HELEN FAIRCHILD,
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01664-JGB-GJS
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
2200 ONTARIO LLC, a California Limited
Liability Corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Arogant Hollywood and Alison Helen
Fairchild appeal pro se from the district court’s order declaring them to be
vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing review order against them. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 20-55012, 20-55013, 20-55014, 20-55075
Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Hollywood and
Fairchild to be vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing review order against
them after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate
record for review, making substantive findings as to the frivolous and harassing
nature of Hollywood and Fairchild’s litigation history, and narrowly tailoring the
prohibition on future filings. See id. (setting forth requirements for pre-filing
review orders).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Hollywood’s opposed motion for an order requiring appellees to re-serve the
supplemental excerpts of record is denied. All other pending motions are
granted. The Clerk will file Hollywood’s corrected reply brief, Hollywood’s
supplemental brief, Fairchild’s supplemental brief, and Fairchild’s reply brief.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-55012, 20-55013, 20-55014, 20-55075