Szanto v. Bank of New York ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER SZANTO, Case No.: 22-CV-1857 TWR (DEB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE PETITION SEEKING 14 BANK OF NEW YORK, PERMISSION TO FILE aka Bank of New York Mellon Trust, 15 ELECTRONICALLY aka BNY Mellon, 16 Defendant. (ECF No. 5) 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Peter Szanto’s Ex Parte Petition Seeking 19 Permission to File Electronically in the Within Case (“Ex Parte Pet.,” ECF No. 5). As an 20 initial matter, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that “[t]he happenstance of graduating from 21 the same university is merely a coincidence and nothing more.” (See id. at 2.) 22 As for Plaintiff’s request for permission to file electronically in this case, the Court 23 wields considerable discretion pursuant to its inherent power to control its docket. See 24 Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Atchinson, Topeka & Santa 25 Fe Ry Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998)); see also Tanner v. Ida. 26 Dep’t of Fish & Game, 2022 WL 1223998, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) (affirming district 27 court’s denial of electronic filing privileges); Leon v. Boeing Co., 664 F. App’x 613, 616 28 (9th Cir. 2016) (“reject[ing] as meritless [the appellant]’s contention that the district court 1 erred in denying him permission to file electronically”). Plaintiff notes that he has been 2 permitted to file electronically in other cases, including in this District, and that he “has all 3 of the equipment necessary to file electronically and is trained and well versed in the 4 manner of filing electronically in Federal and state courts.” (See Ex Parte Pet. at 2–3.) 5 Plaintiff also attests under penalty of perjury that he “has never been reprimanded for any 6 transgression of any court rule of improper filing activity.” (See id. at 3.) 7 The Court has some reason to doubt the last of these claims. The Ninth Circuit’s 8 Bankruptcy Appellant Panel recently recognized that Plaintiff “is a serial litigant and party 9 to numerous court cases nationwide” and, “[a]mong other courts, he is subject to a 10 vexatious litigant pre-filing review order in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”1 In re 11 Szanto No. OR-22-1012-BFT, 2022 WL 17178502, at *1 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022) 12 (citing In re Szanto, No. 17-80195, (9th Cir. filed Nov. 24, 2017), ECF No. 6); see also In 13 re Szanto, No. AP 3:13-05038-GWZ, 2016 WL 3209463, at *1 n.3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 14 May 31, 2016) (noting Plaintiff’s concession that “the California state court found him to 15 be a vexatious litigant”). Further, the Honorable Christopher B. Latham concluded on 16 July 21, 2022, that Plaintiff had acted in “plain bad faith” by “engag[ing] in a scheme to 17 delay and hinder Chase’s efforts to foreclose on 11 Shore Pine Drive, Newport Beach, CA 18 92657 . . . through multiple bankruptcy filings and other legal proceedings.” See Order on 19 Motion for Stay Relief (11 USC 362(d)(1)) and In Rem Relief 11 USC 362(d)(4), In re 20 Szanto, No. 22-01558-CL11 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. filed July 21, 2022), ECF No. 74. In light 21 of these recent rulings, the jurisdictional doubts the Court harbors regarding this case, and 22 the fact that electronic filing is a privilege, see Electronic Case Filing Administrative 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 26 1 For example, Plaintiff is also on the Judicial Council of California’s Vexatious Litigant List. See 27 https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/vexlit.pdf; see also Order re Motion to Deem Peter Szanto a 28 Vexatious Litigant, Furnish Security, and Enter Prefiling Order, Szanto v. Szanto, No. (L.A. Cty. Super. 1 || Policies and Procedures Manual § 2(b) (noting that default for pro se litigants is paper 2 || filing), the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Ex Parte Petition. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: December 13, 2022 5 [ odd (2 re 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28