A prefiling injunction must specifically list each court in which the litigant is precluded from initiating proceedings, according to an Aug. 5 opinion by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The bankruptcy court approved the sale of a man’s business to his sisters. The debtor appealed and lost all the way through the circuit court. Continuing to challenge the sale, the man then initiated 40 proceedings in the district and bankruptcy courts, including 150 motions and 50 motions for reconsideration.
Fed up, the district judge enjoined the man from filing “any new civil action in this Court.” The debtor had filed three adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court before the injunction was imposed and appealed when they were dismissed, after the injunction had gone into effect.
The district judge dismissed the appeals for violating the prefiling injunction. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan concluded that the injunction was not “sufficiently clear” to bar the appeals.
Federal Rule 65(d)(1) requires that injunctions describe the enjoined activities “in reasonable detail,” Judge Srinivasan said. Because constitutional rights are involved, ambiguities are resolved in favor of the party being enjoined.
Even though the bankruptcy court is a unit of the district court, Judge Srinivasan said it was “insufficiently clear” that appeals were barred without leave of the court because lawsuits are begun by filing a complaint in district court, whereas appeals start with filing a notice of appeal in bankruptcy court.
Practice point: prefiling injunctions should contain a laundry list of actions that are prohibited and courts in which they are banned.