Court filing

Order re: Request for Judgment Under Rule 58 — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)

Summary

A civil minutes order of March 10, 2025 issued in chambers by United States District Judge Klausner in Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration, Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed as Document 38. It recounts that the SBA gave Williams an Economic Injury Disaster Loan in May of 2020, that on June 20, 2024 he sent a letter declaring the loan void, and that on September 20, 2024, he sued in state court seeking rescission and $2 million in damages. It notes the SBA removed the case on November 5, 2024 and that on December 30, 2024, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice as relying on sovereign-citizen arguments. The court denies his Rule 58 request for judgment as moot, since the dismissal order is already final and appealable.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Filed March 10, 2025 in Williams v. SBA; one of 29 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Filed	2025-03-10

Cite this document

“Order re: Request for Judgment Under Rule 58 — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.).” U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK, Doc. 38, filed 2025-03-10. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/williams-v-sba/2025-03-10-order-denying-rule-58-request/, SHA-256 ccf78e275b42ad781d4ba2304b7fb0f33e105505116afaa18c4c4666bab19dcc.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

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
Our copy: williams_sba_eidl__docket-69344443__doc-38__id-432687633__Judgment_on_the_Pleadings.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com