UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as trustee for OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-2,

Plaintiff, No. 22-cv-3433 (DLF) v.

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., acting in its capacity as trustee for Series 2005-2 of the Option

One Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-2 (“Wells Fargo”), moves for a prefiling injunction against Janice

Wolk Grenadier, a vexatious litigant and the pro se defendant in this case. For the reasons that

follow, the Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court has recounted Grenadier’s litigation history before, see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

v. Grenadier, No. 22-cv-3433,

, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2024) (“Grenadier I”),

and will do so again only briefly. Grenadier has filed at least five civil actions in this Court, see

Grenadier v. BWW Law Grp., No. 13-cv-1152 (D.D.C. Jul. 29, 2013); Grenadier v. Heckman, No.

14-cv-162 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2014); Grenadier v. Boasberg, No. 14-cv-1463 (D.D.C. Aug. 28,

2014); United States ex rel. Grenadier v. Wells Fargo Bank Nevada, N.A., No. 20-cv-2570 (D.D.C.

Sept. 28, 2020); Grenadier v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 22-cv-743 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2022), and

at least eight more in the Eastern District of Virginia, Grenadier v. Semonian, No. 11-cv-1136 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2012); Grenadier v. United States, No. 15-cv-1497 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2015);

Grenadier v. Virginia, No. 17-cv-166 (E.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2017); Grenadier v. Clark, No. 17-cv-

280 (E.D. Va. Jun. 2, 2017); Grenadier v. Lewis, No. 17-cv-819 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2017);

Grenadier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 17-cv-925 (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2017); Grenadier v.

Smith, No. 17-cv-1106 (Nov. 17, 2017); Grenadier v. Hudson, No. 18-cv-571 (E.D. Va. Jul. 18,

2018); see also Grenadier v. BWW Law Grp., No. 14-cv-827 (E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2015) (action

transferred from this District). She has also filed for bankruptcy eleven times. In re Janice Wolk

Grenadier, No. 23-bk-10904, Dkt. 41 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2023). Finally, in at least three

cases, Grenadier has sought leave to participate as an intervenor. Aziz v. Trump, No. 17-cv-116

(E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2017); Sarsour v. Trump, No. 17-cv-120 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2017); United States

v. Thomas, No. 21-cr-552 (D.D.C. Jun. 2, 2023) (minute order).

Members of this Court have described Grenadier’s filings as “rambling,” “disorganized,”

and “unintelligible.” Mem. Op. at 2, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 22-cv-743, Dkt. 3 (Kelly, J.)

(“rambling” and “disorganized”); Min. Order of Sept. 28, 2020, Wells Fargo Bank Nevada, No.

20-cv-2570 (Howell, J.) (“unintelligible”). Many of them seem to allege that Grenadier has “been

the victim[] of . . . illegal, unethical actions” by “Wells Fargo” and its agents. See, e.g., Compl.

¶ 12, BWW Law Grp., No. 14-cv-827, Dkt. 1. Others target Ilona Grenadier Heckman, a Virginia

divorce lawyer who seems to be related to Grenadier’s ex-husband. See, e.g., Heckman, No. 14-

cv-162. Still others seek relief against judges who have adjudicated Grenadier’s prior cases. See,

e.g., Boasberg, No. 14-cv-1463. Courts have universally found Grenadier’s submissions to be

“meritless,” e.g., Mem. Op. at 23, BWW Law Grp., No. 14-cv-827, Dkt. 65, and Grenadier is

subject to a prefiling injunction in the Eastern District of Virginia as a vexatious litigant, In re

Grenadier, No. 18-mc-10,

, at *10 (E.D. Va. July 2, 2018).

2 This action began in 2022, when Wells Fargo filed an unlawful detainer action against

Grenadier in Virginia state court.

Grenadier removed to this Court—not the Eastern District

of Virginia, where venue over the removed action was proper but where Grenadier was subject to

a prefiling injunction—and lodged a “COMPLAINT / CROSS COMPLAINT CRIMINAL

COMPLAINT” against Wells Fargo and others purporting to show “ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL

COLLUSION OF THE HEADS of BANKS OF 2008 . . . TO CONTINUE [A] SCHEME OF

THEFT OF HOMES FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.”

at *1–3; Dkt. 2 at 5 (capitalization

in original; emphasis omitted). This Court remanded. Grenadier I,

, at *2–4.

It explained that venue was improper in this District, that Grenadier’s attempt at removal was

untimely, and that as a citizen of Virginia Grenadier could not remove actions filed against her in

Virginia state court.

It also observed that, “by filing her [notice of removal] in this Court

[rather than the Eastern District of Virginia], Grenadier circumvented” the restrictions imposed by

that District’s prefiling injunction.

On Wells Fargo’s motion, the Court ordered Grenadier to “show cause why this Court

should not enjoin her from future filings in the District of Columbia relating to Wells Fargo or this

action.” Id. at *4. Grenadier did not respond, although she did file a motion for recusal and for a

special master. Dkt. 24-1. The motion contained 182 pages of supporting materials and alleged,

among other things, “‘HATE’ Crimes” against Grenadier by “‘JEW’ Divorce Lawyer” Grenadier-

Heckman. Id. at 3.

II. DISCUSSION

“‘[A] court may employ injunctive remedies’—such as filing restrictions—‘to protect the

integrity of courts and the orderly and expeditious administration of justice.’” Smith v. Scalia,

(D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Kaempfer v. Brown,

, 496 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

3 (per curiam) (unpublished table op.)). “Any such restrictions must be narrowly tailored to protect

that interest ‘without unduly impair[ing] a litigant’s right of access to the courts.” Id. (quoting In

re Powell,

(D.C. Cir. 1988)) (alterations in original). The Court enjoins pro se

plaintiffs from filing suit “with particular caution.”

(quoting Powell,

).

“In keeping with [their] exigent nature,” the Court may issue prefiling injunctions only

after “creat[ing] an adequate record for review.” Powell,

. Consistent with the

requirements of due process, the Court must also afford litigants “notice and an opportunity to be

heard” before enjoining them.

“Additionally, when contemplating issuing an injunction, it is

incumbent upon the district court to make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing

nature of the litigant’s actions.”

Here, the Court finds that an order enjoining Grenadier from future filings in this District

relating to Wells Fargo or this action is necessary “to protect the integrity” of the Court and to

shield Wells Fargo, its agents, and its employees from vexatious litigation. Urban v. United

Nations,

(D.C. Cir. 1985). First, Grenadier’s filings in this District have been

frivolous and harassing. Each of Grenadier’s submissions in matters prior to this action has been

devoid of merit, and many have been incomprehensible. See, e.g., Mem. & Op. at 2, Heckman,

No. 14-cv-162, Dkt. 7 (“The plaintiff’s submissions are so rambling and disorganized that the

Court cannot identify a viable claim.”); Mem. Op. at 2, Boasberg, No. 14-cv-1463, Dkt. 3 (“[T]he

complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.”); Min. Order of Sept. 28, 2020, Wells Fargo Bank Nevada, No. 20-cv-2570

(“[P]laintiff’s complaint . . . careens from claims under the False Claims Act to alleged violations

of the Thirteenth Amendment . . . [and] is unintelligible.”); Mem. Op. at 1, Wells Fargo Bank, No.

22-cv-743, Dkt. 3 (“[P]laintiff’s complaint utterly fails to meet Rule 8’s minimal pleading

4 standard.”); see also Mem. Op. at 23, BWW Law Grp., No. 14-cv-827, Dkt. 65 (transferred from

D.D.C.) (dismissing Grenadier’s pro se complaint for failure to state a claim as “meritless”).

Grenadier’s papers in this matter, including her filings in Virginia state court before removal,

reflect the same problems. See, e.g., Dkt. 2 at 21 (filed in this Court) (“Troutman Pepper Hamilton

Sanders aka Troutman Sanders . . . . ‘Swindled’ $30,000 in a Cover Up of monies stolen through

a trust account . . . with Divorce Lawyer Ilona Grenadier Heckman.”); Dkt. 14-7 at 14 (filed in

Virginia) (“Lawyer Ilona in collusion with others . . . hired a gentleman . . . [who] was to drug

Janice and get sexual inappropriate pictures of [her] . . . . Lawyer Ilona is a ‘Greedy Jew.’”). In

short, “the number and content of [Grenadier’s] prior filings provide sufficient basis for

consideration of a pre-filing injunction.” Smith,

.

Second, Grenadier’s litigating behavior “constitutes an unwarranted burden on ‘the orderly

and expeditious administration of justice.’”

at 47 (quoting Urban,

). Since

2010, Grenadier has started litigation in federal court more than 27 times. Her habit of “filing

lawsuits against judges who rule against [her] raises the spectre of harassment.”

In addition,

assessing Grenadier’s repetitive filings—many of which are quite lengthy and/or seek emergency

relief—“wastes limited judicial resources” and distracts the Court from claimants who may have

meritorious claims. Davis v. United States,

(D.D.C. 2008); see, e.g.,

Heckman, Dkts. 2–4, No. 14-cv-162 (three emergency motions with over five hundred pages of

supporting materials). Finally, Grenadier’s conduct imposes unacceptable costs on the other

litigants caught in her net, including Wells Fargo and Grenadier-Heckman. For example, in this

action, Grenadier’s plainly meritless attempt to remove Wells Fargo’s unlawful-detainer action to

this Court has transformed what should have been a straightforward lawsuit into a multi-year,

multi-jurisdictional odyssey. See Grenadier I,

, at *3–4.

5 Third, less restrictive measures would not adequately protect the Court and others against

Grenadier’s misconduct. Monetary sanctions would not adequately deter Grenadier because her

litigation history, including her repeated bankruptcy filings, suggests that they could be difficult if

not impossible to collect. Nor is the Court aware of any other non-injunctive sanction that could

bring Grenadier’s abuses of the legal system to a halt.

Grenadier cannot complain that the Court has not given her notice or an opportunity to be

heard before enjoining her. Wells Fargo moved for a prefiling injunction on February 16, 2024.

Dkt. 16. On March 8, 2024, the Court deferred ruling on the motion “[o]ut of an abundance of

caution” and ordered Grenadier to show cause why an injunction should not issue on or before

March 22, 2024. Grenadier I,

, at *4. Grenadier did not respond, even after

the Court sua sponte extended its show-cause deadline to April 1, 2024. Minute Order of March

25, 2024. In short, the Court has given Grenadier “ample opportunity” to share her side of the

story. Automated Datatron, Inc. v. Woodcock,

(D.C. Cir. 1981). Grenadier

declined the invitation—and thereby forfeited her arguments against an injunction, see LCvR

7(b)—but that does not mean enjoining her would violate her rights.

Nor can Grenadier plead ignorance of the law as a defense. Although Grenadier is pro se,

“[e]ven pro se litigants . . . must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Butler v. Cal.

State Disbursement Unit,

, 8–9 (D.D.C. 2013). Grenadier’s personal experience

with the federal courts should also have informed her of some of the procedural rules relevant to

her cases. For example, this is the second case in which Grenadier has sought to remove a Virginia

state-court action into this Court and the second time this Court has remanded. See Grenadier v.

Grenadier, No. 15-mc-1540 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2015). This is also the second time Grenadier has

faced a prefiling injunction. Grenadier I,

, at *1.

6 CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court will enjoin Grenadier from future filings in this District

relating to Wells Fargo or this action without leave of court. “This action” includes matters raised

in Wells Fargo’s pleadings in this action along with matters raised in Grenadier’s. A separate

order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

________________________ May 14, 2024 DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Court

7