Schuster v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Background

On April 8, 2021, the court imposed a filing injunction barring Schuster from filing certain actions, motions, petitions, complaints, or requests for relief without first obtaining leave from the court. The injunction covered matters related to the cable-box incident described in Schuster’s complaint, Charter’s alleged response to that incident, Schuster’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration claims, and Charter’s conduct in defending against Schuster’s earlier actions.

Requests and Rulings

Schuster asked for permission to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice against Kenneth Margolis, Charter’s counsel, concerning alleged coverups, retaliation, and fraud related to the cable-box incident and Schuster’s termination. He also asked for permission to file a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division concerning his medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and his termination. The court held that both proposed complaints fell within the filing injunction and denied both requests.

Schuster separately asked for permission to seek documents from Charter, Jonathan Diamond, Charter’s director of human resources, or their attorneys. The court held that this request did not involve filing a covered matter before a court or other tribunal and denied as moot the request for permission. The court stated that it did not endorse the proposed document requests and would not intervene or compel production if the recipients refused to comply. It further explained that Schuster would still need court permission before filing a covered request for relief, including a motion to compel production, before the Labor Department or another tribunal.

Schuster also requested clarification about whether a request counts as a filing, whether he must answer to the judge, and whether judicial misconduct is legal. The court held that the injunction’s terms were clear and denied as moot Schuster’s requests for clarification.

Finally, the court denied Schuster’s request to lift the filing injunction.

Court’s Reasoning

The court concluded that the two agency complaints were covered by the injunction and that Schuster had offered no arguments or reasons justifying permission to file them. It found that the document request fell outside the injunction, making permission unnecessary, but declined to provide assistance with obtaining the documents. The court also declined to issue advisory explanations about matters outside the injunction’s scope.

Regarding the request to lift the injunction, the court relied on the factors identified in Safir v. United States Lines, Inc. and the reasons given in its April 8, 2021 order. The court remained persuaded that the injunction was necessary to discourage what it described as Schuster’s consistent pattern of vexatious, harassing, and duplicative lawsuits, which the court said had caused needless expense and abused the judicial process.

Effect of the Order

The filing injunction remained in effect. The order denied permission for the two proposed agency complaints, denied the document-related permission request as moot, denied the clarification requests as moot, and denied the request to lift the injunction. The order did not resolve the merits of Schuster’s underlying allegations against Charter or anyone else.