Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Confirms Vexatious Litigant Designation for Hayden

Summary

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the 9^th Circuit, Judges Brand, Lafferty and Gan, affirmed the order of Nevada Bankruptcy Judge Gary A. Spraker, which determined Plaintiff Steven Mark Hayden (“Hayden”) to be a vexatious litigant and imposed a pre filing order requiring Hayden to submit filings to the United States Bankruptcy Court for Judicial review prior to filing. In re Cashion Family Trust, 669 B.R. 341(Bankr. D.  Nev. 2025).  The recent case of Hayden v. Western Steel (In re Cashion Family Trust), 2025 WL 3776896 (9th Cir. BAP 12/31/2025) can be accessed here.

Factual Background and Procedural History

For over a decade Hayden engaged in a litigious crusade against his uncle, William Cashion, and his business Western Steel, Inc., (“Western Steel”) an Alabama corporation. Hayden refused to acknowledge a final judgement against him and a permanent injunction imposed in Alabama in 2013. Hayden filed numerous actions attempting to evade or collaterally attach the Alabama judgment. Those actions resulted in monetary sanctions against Hayden, designation as a vexatious litigant in Alabama, and a criminal contempt order remanding Hayden to custody of the county sheriff for 85 days.  In spite of the rulings in two Alabama cases including rulings upheld on appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, and unsuccessful lawsuits against Alabama Judges which were dismissed by the United States District Court in Alabama and upheld by the 11th Circuit court of Appeals, Hayden v. Vance, Hayden continued his crusade in Nevada where he first filed state court lawsuits (which were removed to Federal court before being dismissed) and then filed four separate  bankruptcy matters in two years:  a voluntary Chapter 13 case for himself; an involuntary Chapter 7 against the Cashion Family Trust; an involuntary Chapter 7 case against Western Steel, and an adversary proceeding against the Cashion Family Trust and Western Steel in the Western Steel Chapter 7 case. The Bankruptcy Court ultimately issued orders to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against Hayden. The uncle and Western Steel moved for an order determining Hayden, who was in pro per, to be a vexatious litigant. 

The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing and issued a lengthy Memorandum decision in the Cashion Family Trust involuntary case and the Western Steel involuntary case.

BAP Ruling

The BAP followed the Memorandum Decision of the Bankruptcy Court which detailed 17 legal proceedings including lawsuits against the Cashion Trust, Western Steel, attorneys representing  Hayden’s uncle, the trust and the company; lawsuits against judges in Alabama; various appeals and efforts to recuse Bankruptcy Judge Gary Spraker.

The BAP applied the five Safir [Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F. 2d. 19,24 (2nd Cir 1986)] factors found in Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) and held that:

1. Hayden established a history of litigation entailed vexation, harassing, and duplicative lawsuits;
2. The litigant’s motion in pursuing litigation lacked a good faith expectation of prevailing;
3. Hayden was not entitled to benefit of doubt as a pro per litigant due to the repetitive and harassing nature of litigation; 
4. Hayden caused needless expense to other parties and posed an unnecessary burden on the courts; and
5. Other lesser sanctions imposed on Hayden were not effective.

Based on these findings the BAP held that the Bankruptcy Court’s orders were appropriately narrowly tailored and were necessary to prevent Hayden from seeking to relitigate already decided issues and violate other court orders.   As a result, the BAP affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision and imposed pre-filing sanctions against Hayden.

Author’s Comments

This case involves an uncommonly vexatious litigant, even compared to other published cases involving vexatious litigants. While most cases of vexatious litigants will not include as many instances of frivolous filings, this case stands as an example of the detailed work that is necessary to establish a vexatious litigant.  This can be a practical impediment in less extreme cases where parties have limited budgets. Nonetheless, in order to finally stop vexatious litigation in court, it is necessary to create a meticulous evidentiary record in order to obtain a vexatious litigant order.

These materials were written by William Winfield of NELSON COMIS KETTLE & KINNEY LLP (wwinfield@calattys.com ). Editorial contributions were provided by Kahleen A. Cashman-Kramer of the San Diego office of Fennemore LLP (kcashman-kramer@fennemorelaw.com ) and the Hon. (ret.) Meredith A. Jury.

Thank you for your continued support of the Committee.