1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NUMINUTITSKA PENATEKAWA Case No. 3:23-cv-05162-WHO TRIBAL TRUST, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 9 DISMISS AND FINDING PLAINTIFF v. IN VIOLATION OF VEXATIOUS 10 LITIGANT ORDER NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, D/B/A 11 MR. COOPER, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 16 Defendants. 12 13 This case was filed by Numinutitska Penatekawa Tribal Trust and Wanag Tahatan-Bey 14 Absolutee Trustee, which are apparent pseudonyms for Kevin-Paul El-Woodruff,1 a plaintiff who 15 “has a long history of ‘serially filing frivolous cases against these defendants to improperly delay a 16 foreclosure despite clear warnings.’” Woodruff v. Sec’y of Veteran Affs., No. 3:23-CV-01043- 17 WHO,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2023) (“Woodruff III”) (quoting Woodruff v. 18 Mason McDuffie Mortg. Corp., No. 3:22-CV-03124-WHO,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 19 Sept. 12, 2022) (“Woodruff II”), aff’d,

(9th Cir. 2023)); see also Woodruff v. 20 Mason McDuffie Mortg. Corp., No. 19-CV-04300-WHO,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 21 Sept. 1, 2020) (“Woodruff I”) (dismissing the case involving the same underlying property on the 22 merits and with prejudice). 23 In Woodruff II,

, at *2-5, I outlined some of Woodruff’s filing history, 24 including frivolous filings in federal district, bankruptcy, and state courts. Those filings 25 culminated in a Vexatious Litigant Order enjoining Woodruff from filing any action in this court 26

27 1 See Woodruff II,

, at *7 (confirming Wanag Tahatan-bey is a pseudonym for 1 against certain defendants regarding the property at 2013 Mount Hamilton Drive, Antioch, CA 2 94531, without first obtaining certification from the general duty judge that the complaint is 3 comprehensible and not facially frivolous. See id. at *8; Woodruff III,

, at *1. 4 That prefiling review order applies “regardless of the name Woodruff uses to file his complaint” 5 and includes “Wanag Tahatan-bey,” as used here. Woodruff II,

, at *7. 6 This case would be encompassed by the Vexatious Litigant Order because the complaint 7 concerns the same Mount Hamilton property, (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1-1] ¶ 13, and one of the 8 defendants is Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. However, like the complaint in Woodruff III, this case 9 was first filed in state court and removed by the defendants,2 which is why it did not undergo pre- 10 filing review. See Woodruff III,

, at *1. Had it undergone such review, it 11 would have been dismissed at the pre-filing stage for frivolousness. See

12 The underlying claims are confusing and unclear but appear to stem from the same 13 mortgage and foreclosure related issues addressed on the merits in Woodruff I. In that case, I 14 found that Woodruff was judicially estopped from raising any of these claims because he failed to 15 disclose them to the bankruptcy court. See Woodruff I,

, at *5-6. I also found 16 that the complaint “utterly fails to state a plausible claim.” Id. at *6. Woodruff’s newest 17 complaint seems to assert a similar underlying set of facts, though this time he frames them as an 18 issue of tribal law, Compl. ¶¶ 23-25, and says that he is “an enrolled [t]ribal member of the 19 Autochthon Kingdom Tribal Nation State,” [Dkt. No. 22] ¶ 1, which does not appear to exist. The 20 reframing of the same issues in this way does not save them from being barred as frivolous under 21 my prior orders and as judicially estopped given the same reasoning in Woodruff I. The judicial 22 estoppel analysis from Woodruff I applies in full force to the claims in this case filed against new 23 defendants, including ServiceLink Title Company and Fidelity National Title Company. These 24 too should have been disclosed in the bankruptcy proceedings and so are barred now. 25 For those reasons, the motions to dismiss in this case are GRANTED with prejudice 26

27 2 The complaint was properly removed to federal court under federal question jurisdiction, 28 1 because amendment would be futile. [Dkt. Nos. 5, 16]. 2 Finally, the complaint seems to name other defendants in this case but they were not 3 served and also are not the subject of any comprehensible or nonfrivolous allegations. For the 4 || reasons stated in the pre-filing review order, see Woodruff IT,

, at *7, and my 5 previous decision on the merits, see Woodruff I,

, at *1-8, any remaining case 6 against these defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice.? 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: November 7, 2023 9 . 10 IMam H. Orrick United States District Judge 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), I find this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and so VACATE the hearing scheduled for December 6, 2023.