Court filing
Order re: Request for Judgment Under Rule 58 — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)
Filed March 10, 2025 in Williams v. SBA; one of 15 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-03-10 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK · Doc. 38 · 2025-03-10 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 38 _ Filed 03/10/25 Page1lof2 PageID #:270 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Date March 10, 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 Request for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 58 [DE 37] 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.) The Court thereby dismissed Plaintiffs claims with prejudice. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs “Request for Judgment on the Pleadings” under Rule 58. Plaintiff seeks a final judgment so that he may file an appeal. No such order is necessary, however, as the Court has already dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, and that order “is final and CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 38 _ Filed 03/10/25 Page2of2 PageID #:271 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Date March 10, 2025 Title Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration appealable.” Holt v. Castaneda, 832 F.2d 123, 124 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion as moot. 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-38__id-432687633__Judgment_on_the_Pleadings.pdf
- Size
- 248,253 bytes
- SHA-256
- ccf78e275b42ad781d4ba2304b7fb0f33e105505116afaa18c4c4666bab19dcc
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com