Garcia v. Dudum
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-05081
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Dudum, Judge Illston denied reconsideration of Garcia’s vexatious-litigant motion and ordered defendants to complete a joint site inspection.
The order directly affected the defendants, who were required to complete the joint site inspection and could not submit further motions until doing so. It also preserved Garcia’s ability to continue litigating without being designated a vexatious litigant.
What happened
In Garcia v. Dudum, defendants asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of their request to declare Orlando Garcia a vexatious litigant. The court had also ordered the parties to conduct a joint site inspection.
Defendants did not schedule or conduct the inspection and filed a document called “Brief SUA SPONTE,” which the court viewed as an improper attempt to file another motion challenging the court’s authority to hear the case. Garcia objected to the filing and said defendants were denying him access for the inspection.
Judge Susan Illston denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration, finding they had not shown that Garcia’s cases were generally—or this case specifically—meritless, harassing, or improper. She ordered defendants to comply with the earlier order and complete the joint site inspection by January 14, 2022, and stated that the court would not consider further motions from defendants until the inspection was completed.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Dudum · No. 3:21-cv-05081
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 17, 2021
Background
Defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss and a motion asking the court to declare Orlando Garcia a vexatious litigant. The court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, requested additional evidence from Garcia, denied the request to declare him a vexatious litigant, and ordered the parties to follow the original schedule requiring a joint site inspection.
Motions and filings
Defendants responded by moving for reconsideration of the denial of their vexatious-litigant request. They also failed to schedule and conduct the site inspection. Instead, they filed a document titled “Brief SUA SPONTE,” which the court found improper because it was not a properly noticed motion and did not comply with the court’s prior order. The filing essentially attempted to present another challenge based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning an argument that the court lacked authority to hear the case.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It agreed with a recent ruling in a similar case that defendants had not come close to showing that Garcia was a vexatious litigant. The court explained that filing many complaints alone is not enough to support that designation. It also noted that Garcia acknowledged being an Americans with Disabilities Act tester, that the law permits such litigation, and that defendants claimed their restaurant had taken steps toward compliance because of the lawsuit. The court stated that defendants had not shown that Garcia’s cases generally, or this case specifically, were meritless, harassing, or improper.
Ruling and required action
Judge Susan Illston denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration. She ordered defendants to comply with the prior order and conduct the joint site inspection by January 14, 2022. The court also stated that it would not entertain any further motions from defendants until the inspection was completed. This order did not decide the underlying motion for summary judgment or the jurisdictional argument raised in the improper filing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.