Austin v. ABC Legal
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-09076
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Austin v. ABC Legal: Judge Illston denied default-judgment and recusal motions, found the amendment request moot, and allowed Austin to amend as of right.
George Jarvis Austin’s motions for default judgment and recusal or reassignment were denied. His motion for leave to amend was found moot, but he was allowed to file a first amended complaint by January 5, 2022. ABC Legal’s motion to dismiss was noted but not decided in this order. Future filings by Austin were subject to the court’s local rules.
What happened
In Austin v. ABC Legal, George Jarvis Austin asked the court for a default judgment, for Judge Susan Illston to recuse herself or reassign the case, and for permission to amend his complaint. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The court said the default-judgment request was premature because ABC Legal had not failed to respond and had filed a motion to dismiss. It also rejected Austin’s claimed conflict of interest, explaining that an earlier recusal order had been mistakenly filed in another case. Because Austin had not previously amended his complaint, he could file a first amended complaint as a matter of course, making his amendment motion moot.
Judge Susan Illston denied the default-judgment motion and the recusal or reassignment motions. She vacated the scheduled hearing, allowed Austin to file an amended complaint by January 5, 2022, and ordered him to follow the court’s local rules in future filings.
The detailed version
- Austin v. ABC Legal · No. 3:21-cv-09076
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 17, 2021
Background
The court considered several motions filed by plaintiff George Jarvis Austin: a motion seeking a future default judgment, three identical motions seeking recusal or reassignment, and a motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court also addressed the hearing scheduled for the motions and Austin’s compliance with the court’s local filing rules.
Default judgment
The court denied Austin’s motion for default judgment. The motion asked the court to grant judgment on December 30, 2021, if the defendant did not respond by that future date. The court held that this request was premature because a party cannot seek default based on an anticipated future failure to respond. The court also noted that ABC Legal had filed a motion to dismiss on December 15, 2021.
Recusal and reassignment
The court denied Austin’s motions for recusal or reassignment. Austin alleged that Judge Illston had a conflict of interest and had engaged in judicial misconduct. The court found those assertions without merit.
The court explained that Austin’s concern arose from a recusal order filed in an earlier case involving Austin. According to the opinion, the order’s caption and contents showed that it was intended for a different case and had been filed in Austin’s case by mistake. The court also rejected Austin’s assertions that it had ignored his motions or an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court stated that it had considered and denied Austin’s request for a five-month extension in the earlier case. It further stated that an interlocutory appeal generally requires certification from both the district court and the court of appeals, and that Austin had not obtained the required certifications.
Leave to amend
The court held that Austin’s motion for leave to amend was moot. Because Austin had not previously amended his complaint, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) allowed him to file a first amended complaint as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). ABC Legal had filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on December 15, 2021. The court therefore allowed Austin to file a first amended complaint by January 5, 2022.
Hearings and future filings
The court vacated the December 17, 2021 hearing because oral argument was unnecessary and Austin had not followed the local rule requiring motions generally to be noticed for hearing at least 35 days after filing. The court ordered Austin to consult and follow the local rules in all future filings and proceedings before it.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for default judgment and denied the motions for recusal or reassignment. It found the motion for leave to amend moot, while allowing Austin to file an amended complaint by January 5, 2022. This order did not resolve the underlying claims or the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.