Opinion
22-cv-03400-BLF
07-25-2022
RALPH B. NEAL, Plaintiff, v. AUCTION.COM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR MOTION TO ALTER ORDER [RE: ECF 19]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration and/or motion to alter with respect to this Court's order striking his complaint and other filings in this action for failure to comply with an applicable pre-filing review order. See Pl.'s Mot. for Recon., ECF 19. The motion is brought “pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and/or Rule 59e, Rule 60.” Id. at 2. The Court finds the motion suitable for decision without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Plaintiff's motion is DENIED for the reasons discussed below.
Judge Edward J. Davila issued the applicable pre-filing review order after Plaintiff filed five separate actions concerning residential property located at 1588 Calco Creek Drive, San Jose, California 95127 (“the Property” or “the Calco Creek Property”). See Pre-filing Review Order filed at ECF 24 in Ralph B. Neal v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-07127-EJD. In the pre-filing review order, Judge Davila noted that “[t]he different lawsuits filed by Plaintiff may raise different named claims, but they are all based on the allegedly unlawful foreclosure of the Property.” See id. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Judge Davila ordered that “Plaintiff must obtain leave of court before filing any further suits based on his allegations that he is excused from paying his mortgage or pleads causes of action stemming from his Calco Creek Property mortgage.” Id. at 13 (emphasis added). Judge Davila further ordered that “[i]f Plaintiff wishes to file a complaint, he must provide a copy of such complaint, a letter requesting that the complaint be filed, and a copy of this order to the Clerk of the Court.” Id. Any such proposed complaint is to be reviewed by the general duty judge, who will determine whether such complaint is approved for filing by the Clerk of the Court. See id.
On June 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the complaint in the present case, alleging a claim for Wrongful Foreclosure of the Calco Creek Property and related claims. See Compl., ECF 1. The complaint clearly falls within the scope of Judge Davila's pre-filing review order, as it stems from Plaintiff's Calco Creek Property mortgage and the allegedly wrongful foreclosure of the Calco Creek Property. See id. Plaintiff did not follow the procedure ordered by Judge Davila, under which he should have submitted a copy of his proposed complaint, and a letter requesting that the complaint be filed, for review by the general duty judge. For that reason, this Court struck the complaint and other filings in this action and ordered the Clerk of the Court to close the file. See Order Striking Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF 18.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's order, arguing that the present action is not subject to pre-filing review because it includes a defendant not named in Plaintiff's prior actions, and because it is based on different facts and legal theories. See Pl.'s Mot. for Recon. Plaintiff misunderstands the purpose of the pre-filing review order, which is to provide a mechanism for screening actions filed by Plaintiff to ensure that they are not duplicative and harassing. Plaintiff's arguments regarding the differences between the present action and Plaintiff's prior actions should be presented to the general duty judge in a letter accompanying Plaintiff's proposed complaint, pursuant to the procedure mandated by Judge Davila in the applicable pre-filing review order. The authority to determine whether Plaintiff's proposed complaint may be filed is delegated to the general duty judge pursuant to the pre-filing review order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and/or motion to alter is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.