United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ROBERT E. CARUSO and SANDRA L. FERGUSON, Plaintiffs,
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR REVISED
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for a
Revised Pre-Filing Order against Plaintiff Robert E.
Caruso's counsel, Stephen K. Eugster. Dkt. #81.
Defendants' Motion is itself based on the Court's
prior Pre-Filing Order, Dkt #68,  and on the Ninth
Circuit's order vacating that Order and remanding for
entry of a narrower pre-filing order tailored to the claims
or challenges that Mr. Eugster has previously brought, Dkt.
Ninth Circuit found that this Court “gave Eugster
notice and an opportunity to be heard, created an adequate
record for review, and made substantive findings as to the
frivolous or harassing nature of Eugster's prior
actions.” Dkt. #80 at 2. This case was remanded solely
for the Court “to enter a pre-filing order that is
narrowly tailored to the claims that Eugster has previously
brought.” Id. Accordingly, the Court's
determination that Mr. Eugster is a vexatious litigant has
been upheld on appeal, and the only task before the Court is
to narrow the pre-filing order against Mr. Eugster to the
claims and challenges he has previously litigated.
Court has reviewed the briefing of the parties and finds that
Defendants have set forth a proposed pre-filing order that
properly responds to the concerns of the Ninth Circuit. Mr.
Eugster's opposition challenges the conclusion of the
Ninth Circuit that he is a vexatious litigant and that there
is an adequate record to enter a narrowly tailored pre-filing
order. See Dkt. #83 at 7-8. The Court is not going
to overrule the Ninth Circuit (and its own) rulings on these
issues. The Court agrees with Defendants that Mr.
Eugster's arguments are “irrelevant, meritless, and
ignore not only the record but also the prior orders from
this Court and the Ninth Circuit, only underscoring the need
for a pre-filing order against him.” Dkt. #85 at 2. The
record is adequate to support this pre-filing order.
reasons stated in this Court's prior Pre-Filing Order,
Dkt. #68, and in satisfaction of the Ninth Circuit's
directions on remand, Dkt. #80, the Court hereby finds and
Stephen K. Eugster is enjoined from filing any of the
following in federal or state court against the WSBA, its
employees, or agents, without prior leave of this Court:
a. a challenge to mandatory bar membership, see Dkt.
#62-1 at 108, 440, 453; Dkt. #62-2 at 160-61, 220, 343-46;
b. a challenge to the imposition or use of attorney license
fees, see Dkt. #62-1 at 108, 441-45, 453; Dkt. #62-2
at 157-60, 197-98, 220, 343-46;
c. a challenge to lawyer discipline rules, practices, or
procedures, see Dkt. #62-1 at 234, 378-79, 445, 453;
Dkt. # 62-2 at 220, 345;
d. a challenge to the inclusion of limited-license
practitioners as WSBA members, see Dkt. #62-1 at
446, 453; Dkt. #62-2 at 147, 192-93, 228;
e. a challenge to the WSBA as an alleged monopoly over the
practice of law, see Dkt. #62-2 at 225, 347-48; or
f. a claim arising from one of Mr. Eugster's prior
federal suits asserting such challenges or claims,
see Dkt. #62-1 at 293-300; Dkt. #62-2 at 17, 99,
the future, if Mr. Eugster wishes to obtain leave of this
Court to file such a lawsuit, he must first file a separate
motion under No. 2:18-mc-66 RSM stating clearly what
distinguishes the contemplated suit from all of his prior
suits. He must attach a proposed copy of the complaint. He
must further present a short description of the legal basis
for each claim to be pursued, with brief citation to legal
authorities in support. Mr. Eugster may only file his
proposed complaint in federal or state court if he obtains
leave of this Court to do so.
copy of this Order shall be entered on the docket in No.
2:18-mc-66 RSM and will supersede the ...