Austin v. ABC Legal
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-09076
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Austin v. ABC Legal, Judge Illston denied Austin’s motion to reconsider the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint, finding his arguments meritless.
George Jarvis Austin and ABC Legal; the order directly affected Austin’s request to obtain relief from the final judgment.
What happened
George Jarvis Austin sued ABC Legal, and the court had dismissed his Third Amended Complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment. Austin later filed a motion asking the court to correct or reconsider that judgment.
The court treated the filing as a request for relief from judgment based on a legal mistake. Austin argued that the court used the wrong pleading standard, that he had shown intentional discrimination, that the court ignored evidence, and that he had adequately alleged defamation.
The court rejected each argument, concluding that Austin had not adequately alleged discriminatory intent or specific defamatory statements and that evidence was not required at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Judge Illston denied the motion and admonished Austin against filing further motions in the closed case.
The detailed version
- Austin v. ABC Legal · No. 3:21-cv-09076
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
On May 31, 2022, the court dismissed Austin’s Third Amended Complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment. Austin previously filed a one-sentence motion seeking correction, permission to appeal, and alteration of the judgment; the court denied that motion because it did not state the grounds for the requested order or the relief sought.
Austin then filed a 134-page motion for reconsideration. The court decided the motion without a hearing and vacated the scheduled hearing date. Although Austin did not identify a legal basis, the court liberally construed the motion as a request for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), including relief based on mistake of law.
Arguments and Analysis
Austin argued that the court had applied the wrong pleading standard. The court rejected the argument because Austin did not explain what standard should have applied and had not coherently shown that the court used the wrong standard. The court reiterated that Austin had failed to adequately plead nonconclusory allegations that ABC Legal acted with discriminatory intent.
Austin also argued that all elements of intentional discrimination were present. The court found that argument meritless for the same reason: Austin had not adequately alleged discriminatory intent in his second or third amended complaints.
Austin further argued that the judgment was wrong because it ignored evidence. The court stated that it had not ignored evidence and explained that evidence is not required at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Instead, Austin had failed to plead sufficient supporting facts.
Finally, Austin argued that the stigma caused by discrimination was independently recognizable harm and constituted defamation. The court rejected that argument because Austin had not alleged any specific defamatory statements and had not cured that deficiency.
Disposition
The court denied Austin’s motion because his arguments were meritless. The court also admonished him against filing further motions in the closed case. Judge Susan Illston signed the order on October 25, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.