# Jones v. Google LLC, Inc.

> District Court, D. Kansas · April 22, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10172380

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Kansas
- **Decided:** April 22, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10172380

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating standard for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10172380. Public record. Not legal advice.