SBA response to plaintiff's objections to court order — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK · Doc. 28 · 2025-01-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. MARTIN ESTRADA 
United States Attorney 
DAVID M. HARRIS  
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 
JOANNE S. OSINOFF   
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Complex and Defensive Litigation Section 
ALEXANDER L. FARRELL (Cal. Bar No. 335008) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Federal Building, Suite 7516 
300 North Los Angeles Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-5557 
Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 
E-mail: Alexander.Farrell@usdoj.gov  
 
Attorneys for Defendant 
United States Small Business Administration 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
UNITED STATES SMALL 
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 
Defendant. 
No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK 
UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS 
ADMINISTRATION’S RESPONSE TO 
PLAINTIFF’S “OBJECTIONS TO 
COURT ORDER” [DKT. 24]  
Honorable R. Gary Klausner 
United States District Judge
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK     Document 28     Filed 01/17/25     Page 1 of 3   Page ID
#:213

 
1 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S “OBJECTIONS” 
Defendant the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) responds as 
follows to the pleading filed by plaintiff Brandon Joe Williams [Dkt. 24] on January 6, 
2025. Plaintiff’s pleading is titled as “OBJECTIONS REGARDING ORDER FROM 
12/30/24 (DOCKET #23).” See Dkt. 24 (“Plaintiff’s Objections”); see also Dkt. 24-1 
(“Affidavit” in support). This pleading includes arguments in support of the Plaintiff’s 
Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 27], but the pleading itself does not request a response 
from the SBA. 
Courts have construed an “objection” to an order filed by pro se plaintiffs as a 
motion for reconsideration. See e.g., Borsotti v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 2018 WL 
6252457, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (construing a pro se plaintiff's objection the 
district judge's order as a motion for reconsideration); see also Robinson v. Gen. 
Manager of Calpia, 2021 WL 4923309, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021) (same); see also 
Kraft v. Tulare Cnty., 2023 WL 5417496, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2023) (“Plaintiff 
filed a document titled ‘Plaintiff's Objections’ under Rule 46, which the Court construes 
as a renewed motion for reconsideration.”); Meeks v. Nunez, 2017 WL 262058, at *1 
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017), dismissed, 2017 WL 3445131 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017) (same). 
To the extent the Court considers the Plaintiff’s Objections as a motion for 
reconsideration, the Plaintiff’s Objections is duplicative of his Motion for 
Reconsideration, filed on January 10, 2025.1 Dkt. 27. The SBA opposes the Plaintiff’s 
Objections and incorporations its arguments in the SBA’s Opposition Brief to Plaintiff’s 
Motion for Reconsideration. 
 
1 To the extent that Plaintiff brings his Objections as a non-human entity, as 
“BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS ®” – a “public corporation” [Dkt. 24 ¶ 1], the Court 
should deny the motion because a non-human entity cannot appear pro se in this Court 
and must be represented by a member of this Court’s bar. See CD. Cal. L.R. 83-2.1.1.1; 
83-2.2; 83-2.2.2. 
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK     Document 28     Filed 01/17/25     Page 2 of 3   Page ID
#:214

 
2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: January 17, 2025 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
E. MARTIN ESTRADA 
United States Attorney 
DAVID M. HARRIS  
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 
JOANNE S. OSINOFF   
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Complex and Defensive Litigation Section 
 
 
      /s/ Alexander L. Farrell 
 
ALEXANDER L. FARRELL 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Defendant United States Small 
Business Administration
 
Local Rule 11-6.2 Certificate of Compliance 
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that this Response statement contains 
319 words and is 1 page which complies with the word limit set by L.R. 11-6.1 and the 
page limit set by the Court’s Standing Order [Dkt. 6]. 
 
Dated: January 17, 2025 
 
 
      /s/ Alexander L. Farrell 
 
ALEXANDER L. FARRELL 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK     Document 28     Filed 01/17/25     Page 3 of 3   Page ID
#:215

File and source

File

williams_sba_eidl__docket-69344443__doc-28__id-427507288__Response.pdf

Size

145,147 bytes

SHA-256

c8596aa4539f78d2a1e1ee41fbe929a812eb1100766bdccccc0d3b0ab0c64fa3

Our copy

williams_sba_eidl__docket-69344443__doc-28__id-427507288__Response.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com