Shankar v. Microsoft Corporation

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE RAGHAVENDRAN SHANKAR, CASE NO. C24-0308-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment (Dkt. No. 76).1 Having considered Plaintiff’s motion and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

18 I. DISCUSSION 19 A. Motion to Amend Judgment (Dkt. No. 76) 20 Rule 59(e) allows parties to file a motion to amend a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P 59(e). Rule 60(b) then allows the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriate under Rule 60(b) if the district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 1 Consistent with the Court’s prior order (Dkt. No. 68), the Court will only consider Plaintiff’s first-filed motion to amend judgment (Dkt. No. 76). It disregards the later-filed motions (Dkt.

Nos. 78, 79, 81).

1 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

4 Plaintiff has not presented the Court with newly discovered evidence, identified a clear error or manifest injustice in the Court’s dismissal order, or shown an intervening change in controlling law. (See generally Dkt. No. 76.) Instead, Plaintiff realleges the same set of facts as with his prior pleadings. (See generally id.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment (Dkt. No. 76).

9 B. Notice of Possible Vexatious Litigant Order 10 Based upon the record in this matter, it appears Plaintiff is using the Court as a vehicle to harass and antagonize certain parties, including the Court and its staff, rather than as a forum to resolve a valid dispute. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 42, 76–83, 85) (various documents either describing Plaintiff’s exceptionally litigious behavior or demonstrating his prolific motions practice).

14 Plaintiff also continues to violate the local rules, despite the Court’s previous order requiring Plaintiff to comply with the local rules, (see Dkt. No. 45 at 1–2), and its numerous admonitions following Plaintiff’s continued noncompliance, (see Dkt. Nos. 68 at 1, 74 at 11). Finally, Plaintiff sent 28 e-mails to this Court’s inbox in the span of two days, following the Court’s entry of judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s case with prejudice (Dkt. No. 75). At best, these e-mails constitute ex parte communications with the Court attempting to allege facts that support reconsideration of the Court’s judgment; at worst, the e-mails denigrate the Court and its staff with a host of expletives.

22 Litigants may not engage in abusive behavior, either with the Court, its staff, or opposing parties. As such, “[t]here is strong precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.” De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the Court may enjoin a vexatious litigant to restrict access to the Court. Before doing so, the litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. Accordingly, the Court notifies Plaintiff that any additional frivolous motions, ex parte contacts, or abusive or threatening filings or communications with the Court may result in an order imposing pre-filing conditions. Such an order would limit Plaintiff’s ability to file frivolous motions and/or bring future claims against Defendant before this Court.

7 II. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment (Dkt.

9 No. 76). Plaintiff’s remaining motions (Dkt. Nos. 77–83, 85) are DENIED as moot.

11 DATED this 29th day of October 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE