Doe v. Sequoia Capital

Background

The court had ordered this action transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 1, 2023. The Central District of California acknowledged receiving the case on August 18, 2023. The Southern District of New York later treated the case as closed.

Nearly two years later, Amber Doe filed several submissions in the closed case. The court had already notified her that it lacked jurisdiction—the legal authority to decide a matter—to consider her motion to vacate the transfer order and had directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate her motion for permission to file electronically because the case was closed.

Motions at Issue

Doe then submitted a motion asking the court to clarify its July 21, 2025 order and reinstate consideration of pending motions. She also submitted an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which are forms of emergency court relief. She sent both motions directly to the judge’s court email address, contrary to the court’s filing procedures for pro se submissions.

Ruling

The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate both motions at ECF 18 and ECF 20. It held that the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction to consider them and stated that Doe must seek the requested relief in the Central District of California.

The court stated that the case was closed. It warned that further submissions could lead to an order barring new filings in this action, except for a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It also directed Doe to stop contacting the judge’s chambers by email or other means and instructed her to submit any notice of appeal to the Pro Se Intake Unit.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.