Weisner v. Google LLC
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:20-cv-02862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Weisner v. Google, Judge Hellerstein denied Sholem Weisner’s motion to cancel proceedings before a magistrate judge.
The ruling directly affected Sholem Weisner’s request to cancel the scheduled proceedings and allowed the proceedings before Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo to go forward. The related hearing concerned Google LLC’s affirmative defenses.
What happened
In Sholem Weisner and Shmuel Nemanov v. Google LLC, Sholem Weisner asked the court on an emergency basis to cancel proceedings scheduled for October 21–23, 2025, before Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. He relied on a Federal Circuit decision denying his request for an extraordinary court order.
The court said the motion raised the same issue it had already decided in an October 1, 2025 opinion. It concluded that the Federal Circuit’s decision did not undermine its earlier ruling. The court also said that a case cited in that decision was different because it involved an equitable allocation proceeding, while the scheduled hearing concerned a summary-judgment motion addressing some of Google’s defenses.
The court held that federal law allowed it to refer the matter to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein therefore denied the motion and directed Magistrate Judge Figueredo to proceed as scheduled. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the filing associated with the motion.
The detailed version
- Weisner v. Google LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02862
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Oct. 17, 2025
Background
Sholem Weisner moved on an emergency basis to vacate, meaning cancel, proceedings scheduled for October 21–23, 2025, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. The scheduled proceedings concerned a summary-judgment motion involving certain affirmative defenses asserted by Google LLC. Weisner relied on a Federal Circuit decision denying his petition for mandamus, an extraordinary request for a higher court to order a lower court to take or stop a specified action.
Court’s reasoning
Judge Hellerstein treated the motion as an attempt to relitigate an issue addressed in his October 1, 2025 opinion and order. He stated that nothing in the Federal Circuit’s decision undermined that earlier ruling. He also considered Beazer East, Inc. v. Mead Corp., a case cited by the Federal Circuit, and found it distinguishable. According to the court, Beazer involved an equitable allocation proceeding that the Third Circuit determined was not a pretrial matter under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The proceeding here, by contrast, related to a summary-judgment motion on some of Google’s affirmative defenses.
The court reaffirmed that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) allowed Judge Hellerstein to refer the matter to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation.
Disposition
The court DENIED Weisner’s motion. It directed Magistrate Judge Figueredo to proceed with the October 21–23, 2025 proceedings as scheduled and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 435.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.