United States District Court, D. Nebraska
LISA NELSON, personally and as assignee of claims belonging to the Shanandoah Trust, H. Lundahl Telford personally and as assignee to the claims of Marti Lundahl, and H. LUNDAHL TELFORD, Plaintiffs,
MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, JEFFREY A. DONNELL, GEORGE E. POWERS, LAW OFFICES OF SUNDAHL, POWERS, KAPP & MARTIN, D. CHRISTINSEN, SUSAN AUKEMA, PAMELLA GEE, U.S. Postal Employees, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. E.H. NEILSON, Plaintiff,
HSBC, BENEFICIAL WYOMING, INC., WADE WALDRIP, Judge, JAMES BELCHER, LAW OFFICE OF CROWLEY AND FLECK, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, K.S. CHRISTIANSEN, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
to Clerk: see Order portion of this document for specific
directions in these and other cases)
a reasonable suspicion that one or more of the plaintiffs and
one or more of two defendants (one defendant in each case)
are engaging in a fraud on the court. So, I will take
temporary measures to protect the integrity of the court
until I have a firmer handle on what to do.
regard, I am seeking advice from the General Counsel's
office of the Administrative Office of the United States
these pro se cases were removed from state court by a
defendant variously named D. CHRISTINSEN and K.S.
CHRISTIANSEN. Both of these cases named plaintiffs with
similar names, LISA NELSON and E.H. NEILSON. In both cases,
D. CHRISTINSEN and K.S. CHRISTIANSEN removed these cases from
the state courts and sought leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Both of these cases involve suits against state
judges and other defendants. H. LUNDAHL TELFORD is listed as
a plaintiff in one case. For the reasons described next, this
person will be referred to as Ms. Lundahl.
Lundahl frequently uses aliases. See Lundahl v.
Zimmer, 296 F.3d 936, 937 (10th Cir. 2002) (noting Ms.
Lundahl filed a suit in the District of Utah under the name
of Holli Telford); see also Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 434
F.Supp.2d 855, 860 n.2 (D. Idaho May 24, 2006)
(“Plaintiff has employed numerous aliases in her past
litigation including, but not limited to, H.M. Telford, M.H.
Telford, Marti Telford, Holli Lundahl, H. Lundahl, H.T.
Lundahl, Marti Lundahl, and Holly Mattie Telford”).
This Memorandum and Order shall apply to Ms. Lundahl even if
she improperly proceeds under any alias.
Lundahl is known for filing abusive, vexatious and frivolous
actions and pleadings throughout this nation and even in the
Supreme Court of the United States. As one court has noted:
Plaintiff Holli Lundahl has a lengthy history of filing
abusive, vexatious, frivolous actions and pleadings, both in
this Court and in other state and federal courts. For
example, in 2003, the Utah Supreme Court noted Ms. Lundahl
filed 19 appeals, for [sic] writ petitions, two
petitions for certiorari, and two petitions for interlocutory
appeal before that court, all in approximately four years.
Lundahl v. Quinn, 67 P.3d 1000, 1001 (Utah 2003).
That court found her filings were “routinely
frivolous” and “with the apparent purpose, or at
least effect, of harassment; not only of opposing parties,
but of the judicial machinery itself.” Id. at
2002. The Utah Supreme Court imposed filing restrictions
against Ms. Lundahl.
1. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, In re
Lundahl, No. 97-80258 (9th Cir. Jul. 17, 1997);
2. The United States District Court for the District of
Utah, In re Lundahl (D. Utah July 8, 2004)
(general order imposing filing restrictions);
3. The United States Supreme Court; Lundahl v. Eli Lilly
& Co., 73 USLW 3631, 2005 WL 461288 (Apr. 25, 2005);
4. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Johnson v.
Stock, No. 03-4219, 2005 WL 1349963 (10thCir. June 8,
5. The United States District Court of the Western District
of Texas, Lundahl v. Hawkins, 2009 WL 3617518 (W.D.
Tex. Oct. 27, 2009), aff'd, 407 Fed.Appx. 777
(5th Cir. 2011); and
6. The United States District Court for the District of
Idaho, Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 855');">434 F.Supp.2d 855 (D.
Idaho May 24, 2006).
Lundahl worked hard to earn these previous filing
restrictions. Her litigation tactics have been
“abusive, harmful, and intended to harass and annoy
both the parties she names in her lawsuits and the entire
judicial system she purports to invoke.” Lundahl v.
Nar Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 855');">434 F.Supp.2d 855, 859 (D. Idaho May 24,
2006). Ms. Lundahl's lawsuits are often blatant attempts
to relitigate previously unsuccessful claims in new forums.
See Id. at 856. Her abusive litigation is extensive.
A United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Texas described Ms. Lundahl's litigation history:
A review of the U.S. Party and Case Index reveals that [Ms.
Lundahl] has filed more than sixty pro se lawsuits in the
federal courts of California, Utah, Nevada, Montana, Texas,
and Idaho, and over eighty appeals in the federal appellate
courts of those states.
Civil Action No. H-08-3786, Order of Dismissal (S.D. Tex.
Jan. 14, 2009) (citations omitted). Those numbers have only
increased substantially over the last five years.
Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 13-CV-241-SWS,
2014 WL 347157, at * 1-2 (D. Wyo. Jan. 30, 2014),
aff'd sub nom. Lundahl v. Halabi, 600
F.App'x 596 (10th Cir. 2014).
Summary of Hearings held on September 19, 2016
back-to-back hearings in these cases on September 19, 2016.
Every person appearing without counsel was sworn under
penalty of perjury.
No. 8:16CV368, I ordered Defendant D. Christinsen and
Plaintiffs Lisa Nelson and H. Lundahl Telford to appear
before me. I warned that the failure to appear as ordered
could result in the imposition of sanctions including, but
not limited to, the imposition of monetary sanctions, barring
one or more of the summoned litigants from prosecuting or
defending cases in this court, and dismissal with prejudice
of the claims or defenses of one or more of the summoned
litigants. The other parties to this action were not required
to attend the hearing, but they could appear if they so
entered a similar order in Case No. 4:16CV3093. There, I
ordered Defendant K.S. Christiansen and Plaintiff E.H.
Neilson to appear.
No. 8:16CV368, Plaintiff Lisa Nelson failed to appear as
ordered. Instead, a person by the name of Steven Fritts
appeared. He declared in a sworn pleading that: “Due to
a family emergency requiring Lisa Nelson to relocate to
Panama on or about September 3, 2016, I revoked the
assignment to Lisa Nelson, terminated Lisa's services as
a subordinate trustee, and re-assigned the causes of action
underlying this action to myself pursuant to my duties under
the trust instrument; said instrument originally created by
Hollie Telford in 1991.” Ms. Lundahl also appeared,
together with a person claiming to be “D.
Christinsen.” (He later identified his first name as
examined each of these three individuals other oath. Among
many other things, it is apparent that the application to
proceed in forma pauperis that accompanied the removal notice
filed by “D. Christinsen” is wholly insufficient
because the financial affidavit that went with it contains
both material omissions and misrepresentations. For example,
he admitted under oath that he listed a dead child as a
dependent and failed to disclose that he and Ms. Lundahl
jointly own a tractor worth approximately $10, 000.
Additionally, he had no knowledge of a debt described on his
affidavit. (“Primo equity lenders- $720/mo.”)
it became apparent that D. Christinsen did not prepare the
notice of removal. Rather, he had the assistance of someone
else. As will become clear in a moment, it is also noteworthy
that on the notice of removal, he listed his ...