Mr. Benjamin Woodhouse v. The United States Government

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 7, 2022, Benjamin Woodhouse (“Woodhouse”) and Havensight Capital, LLC! (“Havensight”) filed a First Amended Complaint against several judges of the Central District of California” (the “Judicial Defendants”) and United States Government officials? (the “Government Defendants”). (ECF No. 10.) The FAC also names as defendants Gibson Dunn Inc.*, Meta Platforms Inc., Nike Inc. (the “Protected Defendants”) and Alphabet, Inc. (/d.) Presently before the Court is the Protected Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Vexatious Litigant (ECF No. 41.). Further, for the reasons explained below, the Court Orders Woodhouse to Show Cause in writing as to why the Judicial Defendants and Government Defendants should not be dismissed, and why sanctions should not issue against Woodhouse.

1 Havensight is purportedly represented by Woodhouse. In a nearly-identical prior lawsuit, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld found Havensight to be Woodhouse’s alter-ego because Woodhouse treats the company “as indistinguishable from himself,” and in filings he “confirm[ed] their unity of interest by asking the Court to reopen ‘all cases involving the Plaintiff, its Havensight Capital L.L.C.…