Jones v. Google LLC, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOSEPH LEE JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 20-3072-SAC

GOOGLE LLC, INC.,

Defendant.

O R D E R

This case is before the court upon plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration or to alter or modify the judgment (Doc. No. 48),

plaintiff’s motion to strike judgment (Doc. No. 49) which has

attached a motion in support of delayed judgment (Doc. No. 49-1),

and plaintiff’s motion to strike or motion for sanctions (Doc. No.

50). These motions were filed after the court dismissed this case

on April 14, 2020.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration argues that the court

rendered judgment too quickly. The court disagrees. The court

entered judgment granting defendant’s motion to dismiss 30 days

after defendant filed the motion. Plaintiff had a full amount of

time to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss and, in fact,

filed more than one response. The court has ruled on many of

plaintiff’s motions prior to the time for a response to those

motions from defendant. The court has given plaintiff’s filings

adequate consideration and the court’s approach is consistent with

Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 which encourages a just, speedy and inexpensive

determination of every action or proceeding. In plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration (Doc. No. 48), plaintiff has not argued new

evidence, a change in controlling law, or clear error or manifest

injustice. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012

(10th Cir. 2000)(stating standard for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P.

59(e)). Therefore, the motion for reconsideration or to alter or

amend judgment shall be denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike judgment (Doc. No. 49) or motion

in support of delayed judgment (Doc. No. 49-1) shall also be

denied. The motion appears to be targeted at overturning the

court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s attempt to file an amended

complaint. As the court explained in Doc. No. 47, the amended

complaint was filed after the court entered judgment against

plaintiff and, therefore, the amended complaint – treated as a

motion to amend the complaint – could not be considered without

reopening the case. But, even if the amended complaint was

considered, it failed to state a plausible claim and therefore was

futile. Plaintiff’s motion to strike judgment and the attached

motion in support of delayed judgment do not support reopening the

case or amending the complaint. They are denied.

Finally, plaintiff’s motion to strike or motion for sanctions

(Doc. No. 50) shall be denied. Plaintiff appears to be asking

that any defense based upon defendant’s terms of service be

stricken. Plaintiff mentions venue as one such defense. The

court, however, dismissed this action on grounds separate from the

terms of service discussed in the motion. So, a request to strike

now appears to be moot. Moreover, motions to strike are generally

disfavored. Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 2005 WL 2219325

*1 (D.Kan. 9/13/2005). Finally, plaintiff’s motion cites no

authority which warrants sanctions against defendant. Instead,

the motion makes conclusory and at times confusing claims which

fail to assert adequate grounds to alter or amend the judgment in

this case.

In conclusion, plaintiff’s motions at Doc. Nos. 48, 49, 49-

1, and 50 are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 22nd day of April 2020, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/Sam A. Crow_____________

U.S. District Senior Judge