Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joel Soileau, representing himself, worked for SpaceX in 2022 and 2023. In the roughly two years after his termination he brought at least ten proceedings against SpaceX and associated individuals: four civil lawsuits and six requests for civil restraining orders. His first two suits, filed in California state court in June 2024 and asserting intentional tort claims, were compelled to arbitration and consolidated. The arbitrator dismissed them, and in April 2026 this court and the state court confirmed the award and entered judgment for SpaceX. In April 2026 he then filed six largely identical restraining order requests naming SpaceX, a finance department employee, its outside counsel's firm, and firm staff, alleging conduct such as sexual assault, extortion, and human trafficking. Those are his allegations, not findings. He did not appear at hearings on May 4 and June 8, 2026, and the state court dismissed all six requests for lack of prosecution.
The state court also denied two sanctions motions Soileau filed in the second case as unsupported and as re-argument of concluded issues. Two further suits followed in April and May 2026, including this one, which was removed to federal court. They alleged claims including identity theft, promissory fraud, sexual harassment, wrongful discharge, and human trafficking. In a separate omnibus order, this court struck each cause of action in both suits under California's anti-SLAPP statute and entered judgment. On July 1, 2026, SpaceX moved in this action to have Soileau declared a vexatious litigant and made subject to a prefiling order.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion under the four requirements of De Long v. Hennessey and Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles. Notice and an opportunity to respond were satisfied because Soileau was served and opposed, and the record was adequate because the court listed the ten proceedings. On frivolousness and harassment, the court found the number of filings inordinate and their content meritless. It reasoned that every claim in the ten actions was ultimately resolved against him, that he relitigated decided issues through repeated sanctions motions, and that the copy-and-paste restraining order requests, which he abandoned by not appearing, wasted the time of respondents, counsel, and the state court.
The court found the order narrowly tailored because it reaches only SpaceX and its employees, directors, attorneys, officers, or partners and is essentially limited to the subjects of the existing filings. Soileau is declared a vexatious litigant. Before initiating any original action in the Central District against those parties asserting conspiracies or issues raised in the ten prior actions, particularly concerning his SpaceX employment and related litigation, he must obtain leave of the court, the Chief Judge, or the Chief Judge's designee. A motion for leave must attach the order and the anti-SLAPP omnibus order and include a declaration explaining why the action is not frivolous, duplicative, or abusive. If the action is found frivolous or abusive, leave is denied and the proposed action rejected.
Separately, relying on inherent power and Local Rule 83-8.2, the court ordered Soileau to post $3,000 in security within fifteen days of the order. It cited the vexatious character of the litigation, roughly $1,350 in costs SpaceX has moved to tax in the two most recent cases, and over $4,000 in filing fees Soileau has spent. Late compliance brings $100 per week in additional monetary sanctions, subject to increases. SpaceX and the protected persons need not respond to further filings until it is decided whether they fall within the order.
Key Takeaways
- By its terms the prefiling order covers only new original actions in the Central District of California against SpaceX and the listed persons; it does not purport to restrict filings in state court or reopen any earlier judgment.
- The findings rest on the number and content of filings: ten proceedings in about two years, adverse outcomes in each, relitigation of decided issues, and failure to appear at hearings on serious allegations.
- Leave to file is not a ban; a covered action may proceed if the required declaration shows it is not frivolous, duplicative, or abusive.
- The $3,000 security must be posted within fifteen days, with $100 weekly sanctions for delay.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Ninth Circuit's procedural safeguards for prefiling orders, which the court acknowledged should rarely be entered because access to the courts is a fundamental right. It also shows a court counting outcomes in arbitration, state court, and anti-SLAPP proceedings, and failure to prosecute, toward both the quantity and the lack of merit required.
Several matters remain open: whether Soileau posts the security, whether any future motion for leave is granted, and any review on appeal. The ruling is a district court order that is not reported, so it carries no binding precedential weight beyond this litigation.