Order denying Plaintiff's motions [Dkt. 27, 32] — 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. 36 · 2025-02-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 36 Filed 02/27/25 Pagelof2 PageID
#:267

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT closed
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Date February 27, 2025

Title Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration

Present: The Honorable R.GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motions [DEs 27, 32]

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This is an action brought by Brandon Joe Williams (“Plaintiff’)—a “natural person” who,
despite being born in Indiana, identifies as a “foreign national of the Nation of the Amnesty Coalition”
and not a citizen of any state or country, and therefore not subject to this Court’s or any court’s
jurisdiction—on behalf of “BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS ®”—a “public corporation” in Plaintiff's
name that was purportedly created at the time of Plaintiffs birth “as a buffer or flow-through for all
commercial transactions” by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1-1.)

In May of 2020, the United States Small Business Administration (“Defendant”) gave Plaintiff
an Economic Injury Disaster Loan. On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter notifying
Defendant that the loan was void and “ordering” Defendant to discharge the loan, according to
incoherent interpretations of the Uniform Commercial Code. Unsurprisingly, Defendant did not heed
Plaintiff's orders. Consequently, on September 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant
in state court, asserting various contract and tort claims seeking recission of the loan and $2 million in
damages. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) On November 5, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this Court
pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). (ECF No. 1.)

On December 30, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and granted Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss, finding that Defendant’s removal was proper because the action was filed against a
United States agency, and that dismissal was warranted for failure to state a claim, noting that the
Complaint relied on unintelligible arguments commonly brought by sovereign citizens, which courts
have uniformly rejected. (ECF No. 23.) Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's “Motion for Leave to
File a Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and to Vacate Void Order” and “Motion to Void
Order for the Original Remanding from State to Federal Court as well as the Judgment.” (ECF Nos. 27,
32.) While not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order denying
remand and granting dismissal. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motions.

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 36 Filed 02/27/25 Page2of2 PageID
#:268

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT closed
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Date February 27, 2025

Title Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration

IL. JUDICIAL STANDARD

While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 controls amending final judgments, Local Rule 7-18
controls reconsideration of court orders. See Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 467 (9th
Cir. 1989). A motion for reconsideration should only be granted in “highly unusual circumstances.”
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Local Rule 7-18 provides:

A motion for reconsideration of an Order on any motion or application may be made only
on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court
that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known to the party moving
for reconsideration at the time the Order was entered, or (b) the emergence of new material
facts or a change of law occurring after the Order was entered, or (c) a manifest showing
of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before the Order was entered.

C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18.

Ill DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying remand and dismissing his claims
with prejudice. He appears to argue that the Court erred by simply concluding that his pleadings and
papers were unintelligible without affording him the opportunity to clarify, either at a hearing or through
additional pleadings and papers. While there are multiple issues with this argument, the Court need only
address one: Plaintiff does not even attempt to explain how this purported error fits into the limited
grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff does not cite Rule 59 or Local Rule 7-18. Plaintiff simply appears
to demand an opportunity to relitigate the motions, which is not proper grounds for reconsideration.
Indeed, Plaintiff does not appear to cite any relevant legal authority across either of his Motions.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES his Motions.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer JRE/sf

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

williams_sba_eidl__docket-69344443__doc-36__id-431554718__Leave_AND_Vacate.pdf

Size

372,996 bytes

SHA-256

af6a6e6adcc1bde3179154fad2e2f637a63f236341ac0fa6f4053b4a1c2db11b

Our copy

williams_sba_eidl__docket-69344443__doc-36__id-431554718__Leave_AND_Vacate.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com