Miletak v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
- Fitts
- 5:25-cv-03931
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Miletak v. Nationwide, Judge Fitts denied motions to strike, disqualify the judge, and reconsider earlier rulings.
Nick Miletak, whose three motions were denied, and the defendants, who opposed the requested relief.
What happened
In Miletak v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nick Miletak asked the court to strike its notice of his prior litigation history, disqualify the judge, and change an earlier order denying his requests for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment.
Miletak argued that the court’s reference to his prior lawsuits showed bias, improperly affected its view of his abilities, and involved improper use of judicial notice. He also argued that the court misunderstood California insurance law and that a February 4, 2022 phone call gave the defendants sufficient notice of his claim.
Judge P. Casey Fitts denied all three motions. The court found that noticing Miletak’s public litigation history was proper, that a reasonable person would not question the judge’s impartiality, and that Miletak had not shown a valid basis to reconsider the earlier order.
The detailed version
- Miletak v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · No. 5:25-cv-03931
- Fitts
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
The court considered three motions by Nick Miletak: a motion to strike the court’s judicial notice of his prior litigation history; a motion to disqualify the judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455; and a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the court’s earlier order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment.
Disqualification motion
Miletak argued that the court’s reference to his litigation history reflected judicial bias and created an appearance that the court had prejudged his claims. The court rejected that argument. It explained that its earlier order addressed Miletak’s motions on their merits and that a reasonable, well-informed observer would not question the judge’s impartiality based on that order. The court therefore denied the motion to disqualify.
Motion to strike
Miletak sought to strike the court’s judicial notice of his prior litigation history, arguing that the court had drawn improper conclusions about his character, credibility, and legal capacity. The court held that the fact of his participation in prior lawsuits, including representing himself in those cases, was a public and undisputed fact that could be judicially noticed under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. The court stated that it had used that history only to explain that an inability to pay for a lawyer does not necessarily mean an inability to participate in litigation. It denied the motion to strike.
Motion for reconsideration
The court explained that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy available only on limited grounds, such as a clear legal or factual error, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. Miletak largely repeated arguments previously made in support of his preliminary-injunction and summary-judgment motions, and the court stated that disagreement with its decision was not enough to justify reconsideration.
The court also rejected Miletak’s arguments that it had improperly inferred his legal capacity from his litigation history and improperly taken judicial notice of that history. Regarding the insurance issue, Miletak argued that his February 4, 2022 phone call was enough to notify the defendants of his claim. The court reiterated that, even if the call qualified as notice, it occurred more than a year and a half after the malicious-prosecution lawsuit against Miletak began, and that the delay caused prejudice to the defendants. The court found no basis for reconsideration.
Disposition
Judge P. Casey Fitts denied Miletak’s motion to disqualify the judge, motion to strike, and motion for reconsideration. The order states that all of Miletak’s motions were denied.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.