Court seeks to halt Valley auto dealer's lawsuits

When he's not selling used cars, Sun City businessman Van Flury is filing lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits.

Flury has filed so many civil lawsuits in the past decade that a Maricopa County Superior Court judge is using a new state law to prevent him from filing more.

Judge J. Richard Gama last month declared Flury a "vexatious litigant" and said the suits he filed on his own behalf "demonstrated a pattern of harassment."

Under a newly amended statute aimed at preventing pro se litigants — or parties who represent themselves in their own cases without lawyers — Flury will be forced to defend his conduct before the presiding judge of Maricopa County Superior Court.

If the "vexatious litigant" sticks and the presiding judge rules against him, Flury won't be allowed to file any more lawsuits without first getting permission from the court.

"It's a civil matter. What do you want?" Flury said before hanging up twice during phone interviews last week. "I'm busy. ... Who put you up to this? That's what I want to know."

Flury, 60, is the owner of Consolidated Motors. It operates out of a Sun City business park on 103rd Avenue, where a smattering of older vehicles sit unattended. The company's website, superbowlautosales.com, for example, recently advertised a 2001 Buick Regal sedan for $2,950.

Flury is a licensed auto dealer through the Arizona Department of Transportation. Records show Consolidated Motors Inc. has not been in good standing with the Arizona Corporation Commission since 2012, when it was administratively dissolved. Flury said Consolidated Motors has been operating as a sole proprietorship, which does not need be registered with the state of Arizona, since 2011.

Gama in his June 5 ruling found Flury was using lawsuits as a form of harassment and as a way to run up costs in cases that were without merit.

"This history compels the conclusion that a large number of these civil filings were frivolous," Gama wrote. "This pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits also demonstrates a pattern of using the litigation process as a means of harassment."

Gama said Flury has filed 28 lawsuits in Maricopa County since 2007 and more than half were dismissed. Flury also has filed filed 15 federal court lawsuits and seven bankruptcy petitions.

Gama noted that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court is currently monitoring Flury's filings to curtail the number of frivolous lawsuits, although records show the court has not barred Flury from future filings or declared him vexatious.

"The gross number of previous civil filing by (Flury) in this court and federal court ... is also on its own alarming," Gama wrote. "These facts demonstrate something more than mere litigiousness."

Gama's ruling came after Flury sued Gateway Chevrolet in Avondale last year over a botched auto auction. Flury alleged that Gateway interfered with the sale of a car he bought at auction for $1,100.

Court records show Gateway sold Flury a 2004 Taurus through an auction company. When issues arose over title to the car, Gateway requested he return the vehicle. Flury refused and instead sued.

But Gama said that wasn't the end of the story. He said Flury initially failed to disclose that he settled with the auction company, which paid him $1,000 on top of his original $1,100.

Gama ruled Flury couldn't prove there had been any contractual interference, and Flury suffered no actual damage, a key component for filing most lawsuits.

"It is also clear from a review of this matter that Plaintiff engaged in disruptive discovery behavior and delay tactics causing increased litigation expenses," Gama wrote.

The case is further complicated by an additional lawsuit Flury filed against Gateway, in Bankruptcy Court.

In that case, Flury essentially claimed Gateway violated his rights of protection from creditors under bankruptcy rules. Flury said Gateway knew it acted in violation of bankruptcy statutes when it asked Gama to declare him a vexatious litigant in state court.

Flury filed bankruptcy in 2014, court records show. Under normal bankruptcy rules, creditors are barred from collection efforts or seeking damages during a bankruptcy proceeding. It is called a stay.

Flury argued in federal court that Gateway violated the stay by commencing an action against him in state court — even though Flury was the plaintiff in the case.

The Bankruptcy Court threw out Flury's case. But it also declined to designate Flury a vexatious litigant.

It is unknown how many times the state court has used the new statute to declare pro se litigants vexatious since it was enacted this year. The courts for at least two decades have held the right to declare parties vexatious and prevent them from filing suits.

The amended law is specifically aimed at pro se litigants. It allows the court to designate someone vexatious for filing harassing lawsuits, intentional delays, frivolous lawsuits, abuse of court procedures, repeated filings or making unreasonable requests.

Gama stressed in his ruling that access to courts is "a fundamental right." He said "any request to deem a pro se litigant as a vexatious litigant is one that must be carefully considered and entered only sparingly."

In Gateway's request to declare Flury vexatious, lawyers pointed to Flury's 2014 foreclosure as evidence of his "ongoing abuse of the court systems."

Court records show after the bank attempted to evict Flury in March 2013, he sought a stay from the Arizona Court of Appeals. Under the stay, the court ordered Flury to pay $2,100 monthly rent on the house to Superior Court.

"Mr. Flury made no payment, and the bank moved to lift the stay pending appeal," Gateway lawyers said in their motion. "At a hearing the superior court gave Mr. Flury a few more days to pay, which, of course, Mr. Flury did not."

Flury instead filed a Chapter 13 petition in Bankruptcy Court, which resulted in an automatic stay. In his petition, Flury claimed to have oil and gas rights on the property that should forestall eviction.

Bankruptcy Court rejected his claim in December 2014 and lifted the stay nine months after the eviction was sought.

"Significantly, the court also ordered that any further bankruptcy case filed by Mr. Flury or his spouse is to be assigned to the same court," Gateway lawyers said in their motion.

This story was published originally on July 5, 2015, and updated Aug. 22, 2015.

Vexatious litigant law

A new Arizona law is specifically aimed at pro se litigants. It allows the court to designate someone vexatious for any of the following:

– Repeated filing of court actions solely or primarily for the purpose of harassment.

– Unreasonably expanding or delaying court proceedings.

– Court actions brought or defended without substantial justification.

– Engaging in abuse of discovery or conduct in discovery that has resulted in the imposition of sanctions against the pro se litigant.

– A pattern of making unreasonable, repetitive and excessive requests for information.

– Repeated filing of documents or requests for relief that have been the subject of previous rulings by the court in the same litigation.

Source: Arizona Revised Statutes