NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FIRST INTERSTATE BANK, No. 24-3641 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:24-cv-00154-TOR v.

MEMORANDUM*

WALL STREET APARTMENTS LLC,

Defendant - Appellant,

----------------------------------------

ALAA ELKHARWILY,

Interested Party - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 29, 2025 **

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges

Alaa Elkharwily appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing pre-

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). filing restrictions and awarding attorney’s fees against him. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. Grancare, LLC v.

Thrower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2018) (award of attorney’s fees

under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)); Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d

1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (pre-filing restrictions). We affirm.

1. “Federal courts can ‘regulate the activities of abusive litigants by

imposing carefully tailored restrictions under . . . appropriate circumstances.’”

Ringgold-Lockhart, 889 F.3d at 1061 (citing De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d

1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)). “When district courts seek to impose pre-filing

restrictions, they must: (1) give litigants notice and an opportunity to oppose the

order before it [is] entered; (2) compile an adequate record for appellate review,

including a listing of all the cases and motions that led the district court to

conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed; (3) make substantive findings

of frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as to closely fit

the specific vice encountered.” Id. at 1062 (internal citations and quotations

omitted).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a pre-filing order

requiring Elkharwily and his attorney to obtain leave of the court before filing

additional notices of removal in a state-court receivership action. First, the district

court provided sufficient notice and opportunity to oppose the order by giving

2 24-3641 Elkharwily fourteen days to respond, which he did not do. Second, the district

court compiled an adequate record for appellate review, listing the four times that

Elkharwily and his attorneys filed untimely, unjustified, and substantively identical

notices of removal. Third, the court made findings of frivolousness and harassment

by explaining that Elkharwily and his attorney had filed four substantively

identical motions for removal, despite the court’s repeated explanation as to why

the notices were deficient. Fourth, the district court’s pre-filing order was narrowly

tailored because it prevented Elkharwily and his attorney “from filing only the type

of claims [they] had been filing vexatiously,” and did not “deny [them] access to

courts on any … claim that is not frivolous.” Id. at 1066.

2. “An order remanding [a] case may require payment of just costs and any

actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Absent unusual circumstances, a court may award costs and

attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an

objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Grancare, LLC, 889 F.3d at

552.

The district court repeatedly explained why Elkharwily’s notices of removal

were deficient, yet he and his attorney continued to file substantively identical

notices. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Wall Street

Apartments, by and through its state-court receiver, $3,950.00 in attorney’s fees

3 24-3641 incurred as a result of notices of removal that Elkharwily filed without an

objectively reasonable basis.

We decline to consider additional issues as outside the scope of this court’s

order issued on August 30, 2024 (Docket Entry No. 15).

AFFIRMED.

4 24-3641