Petition for Writ of Certiorari — James Greiner, Petitioner v. Tesla, Inc.

No.

Sn the Supreme Court of the United States

JAMES GREINER, PETITIONER,

Uv.

TESLA, INc., RESPONDENT.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JAMES GREINER (PRO SE)

108 N. Buchanan Ave. #205

Wenatchee. WA 98801

360-990-3595

Runt ByJames@gmail.com

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

This question encapsulates what the Plaintiff

presented to the lower Courts:

1) When a woman signs a Prenuptial Agreement

for a set amount, she cannot argue in divorce court

that the Law says “she has the right” to half.

Therefore, is it is a Breach of Contract for a

Defendant to have a JAMS Arbitration case

dismissed by saying the Law says that there is not a

“private right of action”’ when the Arbitration

Agreement itself overrules the Law by

claiming/promising that “In arbitration, each side in

the dispute presents its case to a neutral third party

called an arbitrator, rather than to a judge or

Jury.” ...to maintain... “all rights and remedies that

we would be entitled to pursue in a court of

law.”...making arbitration... “the exclusive method

for...resoluing any and all disputes and claims”,

which in effect creates a “private right of action”.

It is the Plaintiffs opinion that this Question

obliviously “contains sufficient factual matter” that

should easily be “accepted as true, to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face” (Ashcroft v. Iqbal)

to satisfy FRCP 12(b)(6). But the District Court

Judge disagreed and basically said, the Parties went

to Arbitration, and the Plaintiff is just dissatisfied

with the Ruling (the Appeals Court simply quoted a

1 Supposedly, the Plaintiff should have filed with the

Immigrant and Employee Rights Section “JER” instead of

JAMS. (But no limiting-factors clause is in the contract,)

few citations and Affirmed). Therefore, the question

becomes:

2) When a man takes his wife and kid to the

movies, but they didn't get to watch the movie

because of technical difficulties, then it is ridiculous

for him to tell his kid, “Why are you crying? I said I

was going to take you to the movies, and I did.” And

even worse, it becomes a form of brainwashing for

the mom to support this logic by saying, “Yes,

sweetie, we watched nice previews, so your daddy's

right.” ...This is to say, everyone knows that going to

the movies (and even watching the trailers) is not the

same as watching the actual movie. Therefore, is

going to Arbitration the same as having an actual

Arbitration when the Plaintiff is not allowed to

present his case — the only thing of value in the

Agreement (the consideration), the very essence of

what makes it an “Arbitration” Agreement (and not a

“Zero Rights” Agreement)?

i

PARTIES TO PROCEEDING

All parties appear in the caption of the case on

the cover page.

Petitioner James Greiner (Pro Se) — the plaintiff

in the district court and the appellee in the court of

appeals.

Respondent Tesla, Inc. — the defendant in the

district court and the appellant in the court of

appeals.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

James Greiner v. Tesla, Inc.,

District Court: No. 2:23-cv-00305-JAG

James Greiner v. Tesla, Inc.,

Appeals Court: No. 25-399

James Greiner v. DNC and RNC,

District Court: No. 2:24-cv-00092-TOR

James Greiner v. DNC and RNC,

Appeals Court: No. 24-2948

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented............ccccccsececeeceseeeeeeseees Page 1

Parties to Proceeding...........cccccccceessseeeeeeeeeeeees Page m1

Related Proceedings..........cccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeneeees Page 11

Table of Contents.................ccccesessseeerseeseseeeeeeaes Page iv

Table of Authorities..............cccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees Page v

Opinions Below. ...........ccccccccccceceeeeeeseseeceeteneeeeees Page 1

JUYLISCICTION...........cccseeessecececccecuecsseccceeseseceeaesesen Page 1

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

skeuip aiaanaeasavsuaeiis gausauietpaleciie head aan uawscaeheueeinenedaiebaandcies Page 1

Statement of Case..........ccccccccccsccesssesseseeseneeesees Page 2

Reasons for Granting...............::ssececesesseeseeeeeees Page 4

ConclusiOn...........ccccccccccesseseeccececeeeesseeecceeneusesens Page 5

Appendix:

Appeals Court Opinion.............ccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeees Page la

District Court Opinion. ... scisessssssenscsssenepexeenns Page 4a

1V

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662 (2009) Page i

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Page i

Constitutional Provisions

Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments Page 3

OPINIONS BELOW

The order of the appeals court (App. la-8a) is

reported at 24-399 DE No. 22.

The order of the district court (App. 4a-13a) is

reported at 2:23-cv-00305-JAG ECF No. 65.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction, per 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), is for the

October 20, 2025 Order of the Ninth Cir. case 25-399.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments of

the U.S. Constitution guarantee Due Process, which

according to Judge Henry Friendly in his article

“Some Kind of Hearing”, includes having (1) An

Unbiased Tribunal and (9) Statement of Reasons.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

James tried to get a job with Tesla, but Tesla

violated his Civil Rights. So, per the Arbitration

Agreement, James filed a Demand for Arbitration with

JAMS.

Tim Kim with Tesla filed a Motion to Dismiss

claiming James did not have a “private right of action”.

Judge Cox with JAMS dismissed the case.

James called the IER to file a claim with them

instead, because supposedly that is what he should

have done (not written in the contract). But the IER

said that he was way past the cut-off date to file.

So, James filed a Federal case for Breach of

Contract and Estoppel.

The District Judge Goeke said James did not

“provide factual support” for a breach. And regarding

Estoppel, he said, “An arbitration agreement is not an

“admission or statement.””.

Oh well. James filed an Appeal because he believes

that the Agreement itself and the Dismissal are factual

support, and the unfulfilled “Promise” of presenting his

case makes it Promissory Estoppel.

While all of that was happening, James filed a

Federal case against the DNC and RNC for hijacking

Our Government and causing massive National Debt

and Inflation. (This will become clear below.) The case

was instantly dismissed, and James filed an Appeal.

But the Appeals Court did nothing with his

DNC/RNC case for a year, nothing. So, James filed a

Petition for a Writ before Judgment with This Court.

It was Denied. Oh well. But something very weird

and revealing happened next. The Appeals Court “in

only 8 days” had a panel of three Judges, adjudicate

the DNC/RNC case to very generically wrap it up.

And, then...

Those same three Judges on the exact same day,

violated my Due Process by adjudicating and very

generically wrapping-up my Tesla case. Meaning,

there was nothing random about picking those Judges,

and their Ruling was literally a few cut-and-pasted

citations with no real Statement of Reasons, which to

me was the sole purpose for an Appeal — as in,

according to Judge Henry Friendly, “A statement of

reasons may even make a decision somewhat more

acceptable to a losing claimant.”

It is beyond obvious that my DNC/RNC case

polluted their views of me’ and they decided to punish

me for it. (““Oh, we can't have him win, he'll file more

lawsuits.”) The proof is that they wrote nothing while

hiding behind the NOT FOR PUBLICATION label.

Anyway... in my opinion... The Appeals Court

Ruling should be thrown out.

1 I know that I went overboard trying to save Our Country.

Specifically, I want to say, “I am very sorry” to Judge Sandra S.

Ikuta and Judge Ronald M. Gould for making their age an

issue. (Can someone, please, tell them that for me.)

Furthermore, to anyone who thinks about being a Pro Se...

Don't do it. All of us have to go to work to pay the bills, which

means none of us have the spare time needed to do a quality

job. The anger you feel will only explode exponentially — it's not

worth it. (Seriously... J never want anything to do with Court

for the rest of my life.)

REASONS FOR GRANTING

This Court “should” (in theory) Grant this Petition

to prevent Tesla from doing this to anyone else, and

more importantly, to also prevent other companies

from using the same tactics to violate American's Civil

Rights and then use Arbitration loopholes to escape all

consequences.

But, it is also understandable that This Court

“could” (in theory) let the lower Courts sweep this case

under a rug. (I say, “Jalapefios are hot”. They say, “It's

an opinion that lacks facts.” Petition Denied.) Then,

everyone simply waits for the same case to come along

again with a Plaintiff who was smart enough to hire a

lawyer, who does a much better job than me. And viola,

This Court will take the case — not to be unjust to me,

but to have a professionally worded document for the

precedential record. (I get it. It makes sense.)

Of course, one path demonstrates “Equal Justice

for All”, and the other path does not. And Justice is all

I want, and to prove it... If Tesla would file a Response

that says something like this:

We agree that This Court should grant this

Petition and close this Arbitration loophole. Tesla

was just starting their Legal department. Tim

Kim was a rookie. Elon Musk was busy saving

Free Speech on X. Everything just happened all

at once.

Then I would set Damages at 76k (for diversity

jurisdiction). I mean, this should be a no-brainer “9-0”

case, and even Tesla should know the truth in this.

CONCLUSION

If Granted, I really do not have anything else to

add in a Merits Brief. Contracts are literally blackand-white and this loophole should be closed — super

simple. So, am I allowed to waive my right to file a

Merits Brief? (Naturally, Tesla would still get to file

one.) If so, then I hereby waive it.

Furthermore, in the end, if This Court rules in my

favor, then it seems inevitable that the ruling would

resolve whether or not the Arbitration Dismissal was

a Breach of Contract and therefore it would make the

issue of my Complaint having “sufficient factual

matter” a non-issue. So, would there even be a need to

remand for a Jury Trial? (Unless it is to decide

Damages if Tesla decides to remain dug-in.) I guess

what I am really hoping/asking for is “You are Right,

They are Wrong”, The End, and I'm done with it all.

Respectfully submitted,

(I'm begging you, please, Grant this Petition.)

James Greiner (Pro Se)

108 N. Buchanan Ave. #205

Wenatchee. WA 98801

360-990-3595

RunItByJames@gmail.com