Opinion
22-CV-1857 TWR (DEB)
12-13-2022
PETER SZANTO, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF NEW YORK, aka Bank of New York Mellon Trust, aka BNY Mellon, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE PETITION SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY (ECF NO. 5)
Honorable Todd W. Robinson, United States District Judge
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Peter Szanto's Ex Parte Petition Seeking Permission to File Electronically in the Within Case (“Ex Parte Pet.,” ECF No. 5). As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that “[t]he happenstance of graduating from the same university is merely a coincidence and nothing more.” (See id. at 2.)
As for Plaintiff's request for permission to file electronically in this case, the Court wields considerable discretion pursuant to its inherent power to control its docket. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998)); see also Tanner v. Ida. Dep't of Fish & Game, 2022 WL 1223998, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) (affirming district court's denial of electronic filing privileges); Leon v. Boeing Co., 664 Fed.Appx. 613, 616 (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 permitted to file electronically in other cases, including in this District, and that he “has all of the equipment necessary to file electronically and is trained and well versed in the manner of filing electronically in Federal and state courts.” (See Ex Parte Pet. at 2-3.) Plaintiff also attests under penalty of perjury that he “has never been reprimanded for any transgression of any court rule of improper filing activity.” (See id. at 3.)
The Court has some reason to doubt the last of these claims. The Ninth Circuit's Bankruptcy Appellant Panel recently recognized that Plaintiff “is a serial litigant and party to numerous court cases nationwide” and, “[a]mong other courts, he is subject to a vexatious litigant pre-filing review order in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.” In re Szanto No. OR-22-1012-BFT, 2022 WL 17178502, at *1 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022) (citing In re Szanto, No. 17-80195, (9th Cir. filed Nov. 24, 2017), ECF No. 6); see also In re Szanto, No. AP 3:13-05038-GWZ, 2016 WL 3209463, at *1 n.3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. May 31, 2016) (noting Plaintiff's concession that “the California state court found him to be a vexatious litigant”). Further, the Honorable Christopher B. Latham concluded on July 21, 2022, that Plaintiff had acted in “plain bad faith” by “engag[ing] in a scheme to delay and hinder Chase's efforts to foreclose on 11 Shore Pine Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92657 . . . through multiple bankruptcy filings and other legal proceedings.” See Order on Motion for Stay Relief (11 USC 362(d)(1)) and In Rem Relief 11 USC 362(d)(4), In re Szanto, No. 22-01558-CL11 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. filed July 21, 2022), ECF No. 74. In light of these recent rulings, the jurisdictional doubts the Court harbors regarding this case, and the fact that electronic filing is a privilege, see Electronic Case Filing Administrative 2 Policies and Procedures Manual § 2(b) (noting that default for pro se litigants is paper filing), the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Ex Parte Petition.
For example, Plaintiff is also on the Judicial Council of California's Vexatious Litigant List. See https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/vexlit.pdf; see also Order re Motion to Deem Peter Szanto a Vexatious Litigant, Furnish Security, and Enter Prefiling Order, Szanto v. Szanto, No. (L.A. Cty. Super. Ct. filed Sept. 23, 2011).
IT IS SO ORDERED. 3