Gremmels v. Apple Inc.
- 4:25-cv-03722
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gremmels v. Apple Inc., the court extended the amendment deadline and denied a PACER fee exemption without prejudice.
Christian Gremmels, who was representing himself, received more time to file an amended complaint but was denied a PACER fee exemption without prejudice. The action was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Gremmels v. Apple Inc., Christian Gremmels responded to an order requiring him to explain why his case should not be dismissed and to file an amended complaint. He had mailed his response directly to the magistrate judge instead of the Clerk’s Office, so the court redirected it for filing because he was representing himself.
The court extended the deadline for an amended complaint to July 28, 2025, because of Gremmels’s questions and his claim that he received the earlier order late. The court warned that the magistrate judge may recommend dismissing the case if he does not file an amended complaint or does not correct the problems identified in the earlier order.
The court also denied Gremmels’s request for a PACER fee exemption without prejudice. Judge: the court explained that representing himself or proceeding without paying the court’s filing fees did not by itself justify waiving PACER fees, and said he could file electronically without charge by registering for the court’s electronic filing system.
The detailed version
- Gremmels v. Apple Inc. · No. 4:25-cv-03722
- June 10, 2025
Background
The court considered Christian Gremmels’s response to an order to show cause and his correspondence about PACER fees. The earlier order required him to file an amended complaint by June 4, 2025. Instead, he mailed a response directly to the magistrate judge. The court explained that mailed documents must be sent to the Clerk’s Office, not directly to the judge. As a courtesy, and because Gremmels was representing himself, the court redirected the response to the Clerk’s Office, where it was filed on the docket.
Amended-Complaint Deadline
Gremmels’s response included questions about the order to show cause. The court also considered his statement that he received the order late. It extended the deadline for filing an amended complaint to July 28, 2025, and directed him to the court’s complaint template and filing instructions. The court stated that the magistrate judge may recommend dismissal if Gremmels does not file an amended complaint or if the amended complaint does not correct the defects identified in the earlier order. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or state what those defects were.
PACER Fee Exemption
The court treated Gremmels’s correspondence as a request to waive PACER fees. It explained that an exemption requires a showing that the exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information. The court found that Gremmels had not made that showing and denied the PACER fee-exemption request without prejudice. It also stated that his permission to proceed without paying the case-filing fee did not by itself support waiving PACER fees.
The court noted that Gremmels said he needed a PACER exemption to file documents electronically. It explained that he could file documents electronically without cost by registering as a user of the court’s electronic filing system. The court also referred him to instructions for electronic filing in the handbook for people representing themselves in federal court.
Disposition
The court extended the amended-complaint deadline to July 28, 2025 and denied the PACER fee-exemption request without prejudice. It did not dismiss the action in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.