Brar v. Apple Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the plaintiff’s motions to reopen a closed case, obtain miscellaneous orders, and waive court and PACER fees. The court held that the filings were frivolous, did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction or provide grounds for reconsideration, and directed the plaintiff to refrain from filing further frivolous motions.

Holdings

1. Even under a liberal standard, the court declined to construe plaintiff's filings as motions for reconsideration because they identified no authority or new facts supporting relief and ignored the prior determination that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking.
2. The motions were frivolous because they were based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and baseless factual contentions.
3. Plaintiff's motions to reopen the case, obtain related relief, and waive fees were denied, and plaintiff was directed to refrain from filing further frivolous motions in the closed action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's motions in the closed case should be construed as motions for reconsideration and granted.
2. Whether plaintiff established a basis to reopen the action, set a hearing, issue a summons, change the assigned judicial officer, or waive court and PACER fees after dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether the motions were frivolous because they relied on an indisputably meritless legal theory and baseless factual contentions.

Disposition

other