Emergency Application — Geronimo Velasco, Applicant v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, et al.

Geronimo Velasco

23480 Nevada Rd.

Hayward California 94541

(510) 399-8028

monongiko@aol.com

July 28, 2025

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20543

Re: Emergency Application for Stay under Rule 23 and the All Writs Act

Velasco v. United States District Court, et al.

Dear Mr. Harris:

Enclosed please find Petitioner’s Emergency Application for Stay of District Court proceedings

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 and the All Writs Act, accompanied by the required

certificates and supporting exhibits. This Application seeks urgent relief to prevent irreparable

constitutional harm from imminent proceedings scheduled for August 8 and August 28, 2025,

which arise from procedural events never lawfully scheduled and from contradictory judicial

rulings that directly implicate circuit conflicts and nationwide due process concerns.

Petitioner respectfully submits this filing as a pro se litigant under severe time constraints,

disability, and hardship. Every effort has been made to comply with the Court’s formatting and

procedural rules. If any aspect of this submission is found to be noncompliant or incomplete,

Petitioner respectfully requests an opportunity to cure any defect without prejudicing the

emergency request for relief.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Geronimo Velasco

Petitioner pro se

RECEIVED

AUG - 1 2995

OFFICE OF THE CL

SUPREME COUR; Gk

SENT, U.S,

No,

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GERONIMO VELASCO,

Applicant,

Vv.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA;

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,

Respondents;

PENTAGON TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.,

Real Party in Interest.

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

UNDER RULE 23 AND THE ALL WRITS ACT

TO THE HONORABLE ELENA KAGAN, CIRCUIT JUSTICE

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Respectfully submitted,

Geronimo Velasco

Pro Se Applicant

23480 Nevada Road

Hayward, California 94541

(510) 399-8028

monongiko@aol.com

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Applicant: Geronimo Velasco, pro se plaintiff in the district court and applicant in this

proceeding.

Respondents:

1. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and

2. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Real Party in Interest: Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc., represented by:

JASON A. GELLER

jgeller@fisherphillips.com

JOSEPH M. CRITTENDEN

jerittenden@fisherphillips.com

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400

San Francisco, California 94104

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether a federal district judge commits judicial estoppel by issuing contradictory orders

stating that a plaintiff both "failed to appear" at a hearing and that the same hearing was

"valid," while simultaneously discharging an Order to Show Cause based on that alleged

failure to appear?

2. Whether federal courts may impose sanctions based on "phantom hearings"—

proceedings that were legally voided by prior court orders but used as the basis for

finding procedural violations?

3. Whether this Court should exercise its supervisory authority under the All Writs Act

when lower courts systematically violate Federal Rules and due process protections while

foreclosing appellate review?

Il. INTRODUCTION

This Emergency Application presents a constitutional issue of first impression with

sweeping implications for federal court integrity: whether a judge may contradict their own

orders, invent a “phantom hearing,” and then use that fabricated record to impose sanctions and

block review. If left unaddressed, this precedent would endanger the due process rights of over

400,000 federal litigants annually, permitting courts to insulate procedural misconduct through

estoppel and “no further filings” bars. To protect nationwide public trust in judicial fairness, this

Application respectfully seeks a temporary stay to allow this Court to assess the constitutional

dangers posed by phantom proceedings and unchecked judicial contradiction.

THE FIRST DOCUMENTED CASE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL FROM THE BENCH

This Emergency Application presents an unprecedented constitutional crisis: the first

documented case in federal court history where a district judge has committed judicial estoppel

through contradictory orders in the same proceeding, combined with evidence of a "phantom

hearing"—a court proceeding that legally never existed but was used to justify sanctions against

a litigant.

UNDISPUTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL

Unlike typical judicial misconduct requiring investigation, every violation exists in official court

records, eliminating all factual disputes:

The Impossible Contradiction (See Exhibit A, Dkts. 62, 63, 68, 76):

1. June 6, 2025: Judge issued Order to Show Cause stating: "Plaintiff FAILED TO APPEAR

at Case Management Conference" (Exhibit A-1, A-3)

2. June 27, 2025: Same judge DISCHARGED the OSC—legally establishing no failure to

appear occurred (Exhibit A-4)

3. July 8, 2025: Same judge contradicted the discharge, ruling: "June 6 hearing was NOT

DEFECTIVE and VALID" (Exhibit A-5)

Legal Impossibility: A judge cannot discharge an OSC for failure to appear AND

simultaneously find the hearing valid. These positions are mutually exclusive under law and

constitute judicial estoppel, obstruct truth-finding, and violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

52(a) and due process, See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001) (judicial

estoppel doctrine bars taking contradictory positions).

THE PHANTOM HEARING EVIDENCE

The "phantom hearing" is not allegation but documented fact (See Exhibit B):

e Court's own dockets prove no hearing legally existed on June 6, 2025 (Exhibit B-1,

B-2)

e Defense counsel acknowledged "void hearing" in Case Management Statement

(Exhibit B-4, B-6)

e Consolidation order explicitly voided all prior hearing dates (Exhibit B-2, B-3)

e No scheduling order exists for June 6 proceeding (Exhibit B-5)

This constitutes a phantom hearing—an unconstitutional deprivation of notice and opportunity to

be heard, violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d), 16(f), 60(b)(4), and Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &

Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) (due process requires "notice reasonably calculated" to

inform parties).

DEFENSE COUNSEL ADMISSION OF IMPROPER CONDUCT

e May 30, 2025 — Defense filed Case Management Statement acknowledging a June 6

hearing (which had been voided) (Exhibit B-6; Dkt. 58)

e June 26, 2025 — Counsel emailed: “Just to clarify your email, is it your position that if in

court tomorrow I communicate the ‘Suggested Stipulation’ to the judge, you will

withdraw your Rule 11 letter and all other ‘Defense Exposure’ identified in your June

26, 2025 email?” (Exhibit D-1)

Defense counsel implicitly acknowledged legal exposure and attempted to negotiate away

sanctions through improper coordination. This supports potential violations under Rule 11(b), 28

U.S.C. § 1927, and ethical duties under Model Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal).

Ninth Circuit Procedural Bar to Constitutional Review

e July 21, 2025 — Ninth Circuit denied mandamus petition with the atypical phrase: “No

further filings will be entertained in this closed case.” See Exhibit C [Case No. 25-4274,

Dkt. 9.1]

"The Ninth Circuit's denial without addressing the judicial estoppel evidence demonstrates

precisely why Supreme Court supervisory authority is essential. When appellate courts fail to

recognize unprecedented constitutional violations, only this Court can restore constitutional

order."

EMERGENCY DEADLINES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION

This Emergency Application seeks only a limited stay—just enough time for this Court to

examine official record evidence of judicial estoppel and phantom proceedings. Petitioner does

not seek extraordinary relief, only a pause to assess serious, unresolved constitutional questions

of first impression.

On August 8, 2025, Petitioner will be forced into a settlement conference grounded in a

void June 6 hearing, without valid consent (Exhibit G-3; Dkt. 77, 80)). If allowed to proceed, this

would lock in a false evidentiary record, blocking meaningful public and congressional scrutiny

of clear judicial contradictions.

Then on August 28, 2025, the same judge who discharged the Order to Show Cause—but

later relied on it—will preside over a Rule 11 sanctions hearing based on events that were never

noticed, scheduled, or properly docketed. (Exhibit E)

Allowing these proceedings would legitimize a new precedent: that a court may punish based on

non-events and immunize itself from review. This erodes due process, forecloses appellate relief,

and undermines trust in the federal judiciary.

Only this Court’s intervention under Rule 23 and the All Writs Act can prevent these hearings

from becoming a blueprint for procedural abuse—where phantom events become unreviewable,

and judicial self-contradiction becomes untouchable.

Petitioner has no legal forum left after the Ninth Circuit’s denial order. The district court

continues proceedings tied to a phantom hearing (June 6) that was never properly noticed,

retroactively justified and used to threaten sanctions (See Exhibit G)

The Constitutional Crisis: If federal judges can take logically impossible legal positions

without consequence, no citizen has secure due process protections in federal court.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction under:

e Supreme Court Rule 23 (Emergency Applications) provides the mechanism for

emergency applications to a Circuit Justice

e 280U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act) authorizes this Court to issue "all writs necessary or

appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions"

e 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (Certiorari jurisdiction over Courts of Appeals)

"This Application seeks the Court's supervisory authority over federal courts that have

systemically failed to address unprecedented judicial misconduct affecting fundamental

constitutional rights.

HI. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Consolidation That Created the Phantom Hearing

1. August 16, 2024: Petitioner filed pro se employment discrimination case in the Northern

District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-05307-VC) involving Title VII and California

FEHA claims. The initial Case Management Conference was set for June 6, 2025.

2. January 21, 2025: Petitioner filed a second lawsuit against the same employer (Case No.

3:25-cv-00680-VC).

3. February 28, 2025: Court consolidated the cases into the lead case. The consolidation

order explicitly stated: "Any case management conference in any reassigned case will be

rescheduled by the Court" and that consolidation "voided all prior hearing dates and

mandated new scheduling under the reassigned judge" (Exhibit B-2).

4. May 30, 2025: Despite consolidation voiding June 6 hearing, Defense Counsel filed Case

Management Statement for the voided June 6 hearing, acknowledging it as a "void

hearing" (Exhibit B-4).

The Phantom Hearing and Judicial Estoppel Sequence

5. June 6, 2025: Court held unscheduled proceeding despite consolidation order and issued

OSC for "failure to appear" at legally non-existent hearing. No scheduling order or

notice for June 6 was issued by the Court (Exhibit A-1, A-3).

6. June 27, 2025: Judge lifted the OSC, legally establishing no failure to appear occurred.

Defense Counsel colloquy appeared to moot pending motions (Exhibit A-4).

7. July 8, 2025: Same judge contradicted the discharge by denying motions and declaring:

"The case management conference was not procedurally defective because the order

relating cases stated that CMCs in reassigned cases would be rescheduled, but the case

management conference was originally scheduled in this case, which was not reassigned"

and "June 6 hearing was NOT DEFECTIVE and VALID" (Exhibit A-5).

Ninth Circuit Procedural Bar

8. July 21, 2025: Ninth Circuit denied mandamus petition with unprecedented language:

"No further filings will be entertained in this closed case" (Exhibit C), blocking all

appellate remedies including rehearing and en banc petitions under FRAP 35 and 40.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

To obtain a stay, the applicant must demonstrate:

1. A reasonable probability of certiorari or ultimate success on the merits

2. A likelihood of irreparable harm absent a stay

3. That the balance of equities favors the applicant

4, That the public interest supports intervention

See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.

418, 434 (2009).

For extraordinary relief such as mandamus, the Court considers whether:

e The petitioner has no other adequate remedy

e The petition raises issues of first impression or exceptional public importance

e The lower court's conduct constitutes a judicial usurpation of power or clear abuse of

discretion

See Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Bauman v. U.S. Dist.

Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977).

IV. ARGUMENT

I. JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL FROM THE BENCH: A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF

FIRST IMPRESSION

A. The Doctrinal Foundation

Judicial estoppel prevents parties from adopting contradictory positions in litigation to gain

unfair advantage or manipulate the judicial process. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749

(2001). When a judge commits judicial estoppel through contradictory orders, it becomes a due

process violation because:

L.

Truth-Finding Function Destroyed: Courts cannot discharge an OSC (finding no failure

occurred) while simultaneously validating the hearing that justified the OSC

Rule 52(a) Violation: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires judges to "find the

facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately." Contradictory findings violate

this fundamental requirement for coherent judicial reasoning

Due Process Denial: Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976), requires fair

proceedings before government action. Litigants cannot meaningfully respond to

logically impossible judicial positions

B. The Unprecedented Nature

This Application presents the first documented case where:

A federal judge has estopped himself through contradictory orders in the same proceeding

The contradictions are facially apparent in official court records

The estoppel directly impacts sanctions and constitutional rights

All factual disputes are eliminated by documentary evidence

C. Certiorari-Worthy Question of National Importance

May a federal judge adopt mutually exclusive legal positions regarding the same factual event to

Justify sanctions against a litigant?

This question has nationwide implications for:

Judicial integrity and accountability

Due process protections for all federal litigants

The coherence of federal judicial proceedings

Prevention of judicial usurpation of power

II]. THE PHANTOM HEARING: SANCTIONS WITHOUT JURISDICTION

A. The Void Ab Initio Doctrine

The June 6 proceeding was void ab initio under established precedent:

1. No Legal Authority: The February 28 consolidation order explicitly voided all prior

hearings and required rescheduling (Exhibit B-2)

2. No Valid Notice: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314

(1950), requires notice "reasonably calculated" to inform affected parties. No scheduling

order was issued for June 6

3. Defense Counsel Acknowledgment: Opposing counsel characterized it as "void hearing"

in their own filing (Exhibit B-4)

B. Constitutional and Procedural Violations

Imposing sanctions based on a void proceeding violates:

e Due Process Clause: Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (due process requires

notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation)

e Federal Rule 16(d): Case management conferences require proper scheduling and notice

e Federal Rule 16(f): Sanctions require valid underlying proceedings

e Void Judgment Doctrine: United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 (1878)

("That which does not exist cannot be validated")

Il. ALL FOUR FACTORS SUPPORT EMERGENCY RELIEF

A. Reasonable Probability of Success on the Merits

The documentary evidence establishes clear violations of:

e Judicial estoppel doctrine (New Hampshire v. Maine)

e Due process requirements (Mullane, Mathews v. Eldridge)

e Federal Rule 52(a) (duty to make coherent findings)

e Void proceeding doctrine (Throckmorton)

These are questions of law based on undisputed documentary evidence, creating strong

likelihood of success.

B. Irreparable Harm Absent Stay

August 28 Rule 11 Hearing: The district judge will rule on sanctions arising from his own

contradictory conduct, creating:

e Structural bias violating Caperton v. A.T: Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009)

(due process violated by "probability of bias")

e Irreversible reputational harm that cannot be remedied on appeal

e Dangerous precedent legitimizing judicial self-contradiction

August 8 Settlement Conference: Compelled participation based on phantom proceedings:

e Violates Federal Rule 16(c)(2)(1) consent requirements

e Creates irreversible waiver implications

e Seals evidentiary record from public and Congressional scrutiny

C. Balance of Equities Favors Applicant

A brief stay preserves all parties’ rights while ensuring constitutional adjudication. Respondents

suffer no harm from delaying proceedings rooted in procedural violations, while Applicant faces

irreversible constitutional injury.

D. Public Interest Strongly Supports Intervention

Allowing judicial estoppel from the bench would:

e Undermine public trust in the federal judiciary

e Create a template for procedural abuse nationwide

e Deny due process to over 400,000 annual federal litigants

10

e Establish that judges are immune from basic logical consistency requirements

The public interest in judicial integrity and constitutional compliance strongly favors

intervention.

IV. NO ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY EXISTS

The Ninth Circuit's "no further filings will be entertained" language (Exhibit C) forecloses all

traditional appellate remedies, including:

e Panel rehearing under FRAP 35

e En banc petition under FRAP 40

e Further mandamus petitions

This creates the precise scenario requiring this Court's supervisory authority under the All Writs

Act. Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-60 (1947) (All Writs Act available when no other

adequate remedy exists).

V. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

This case presents a profound threat to constitutional integrity that extends far beyond the parties

involved. The acceptance of judicial estoppel from the bench and phantom proceedings would

establish a dangerous precedent: that federal courts may fabricate events, issue contradictory

rulings without explanation, and punish litigants for challenging those contradictions—all

without meaningful appellate remedy.

The evidence is overwhelming, documented, and undisputed. The deadlines are imminent. The

constitutional implications are nationwide. Emergency intervention is essential to preserve the

rule of law and due process protections for all federal litigants.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

11

1. IMMEDIATELY STAY ail district court proceedings in Case No. 3:24-cv-05307-VC,

including:

o The August 8, 2025 settlement conference conducted without consent and based

on void proceedings

o The August 28, 2025 Rule 11 sanctions hearing before a structurally biased

tribunal

2. TREAT THIS APPLICATION AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI if appropriate,

under the Court's supervisory authority and 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)

3. ISSUE ANY FURTHER RELIEF this Court deems just and necessary to preserve

constitutional protections and prevent irreparable harm pending full review

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Geronimo Velasco

GERONIMO VELASCO

Pro Se Applicant

23480 Nevada Road

Hayward, California 94541

(510) 399-8028

monongiko@aol.com

Dated: July 28, 2025

12

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 33.1(g), I certify that this Emergency

Application for Stay contains 2,805 words, excluding the portions exempted under Rule 33.1(d),

such as the cover page, table of contents, table of authorities, signature block, certificate of

service, and appendix.

This document was prepared using Microsoft Word for Microsoft 365, and the word count was

determined using its built-in word count feature.

Dated: July 28, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Geronimo Velasco

Petitioner, Pro Se

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 28, 2025, I served a true and correct copy of this Emergency

Application for Stay via U.S. Mail and email on the following parties:

JASON A. GELLER

jgeller@fisherphillips.com

JOSEPH M. CRITTENDEN

jcrittenden@fisherphillips.com

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400

San Francisco, California 94104

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true

and correct.

Executed on July 28, 2025 at Hayward, California.

/s/ Geronimo Velasco

GERONIMO VELASCO

Pro Se Applicant

14

APPENDIX TO EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY

Geronimo Velasco v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, et

al.

Supreme Court of the United States

No.

Exhibit

ae Argument Evidence F

Exhibit Content Focus Support Quality Strategic Value

. _ HIGH -

Exhibit A (Dkts | __, udicial jase SERONG- Undisputed

Estoppel/Contra misconduct Official court

62,63,68,76) ae . documentary

dictions claims records

proof

Exhibit B ae VERY emesis

Due Process Constitutional Core

(Phantom AP . STRONG - “~—_

. Violations claims . constitutional

Hearing) Multiple sources

argument

Exhibit C Exhaustion/juris STRONG - HIGH -

(Mandamus Access to Courts dicti J Official circuit Jurisdictional

; iction ; :

Denial) ruling foundation

Exhibit | Coordination/Bi | Structural | MODERATE - | MODERATE -

(Defense . ; ; ; . Supports bias

. as Evidence conflict claims Circumstantial .

Emails) narrative

Exhibit E Procedural Context/organiza STRONG HIGH -

Loa . . . Comprehensive Clarifies

(Timeline Brief) Overview tion

summary complex facts

Exhibit F (Rule Retaliation Sanctions abuse STRONG - MODERATE -

11/Denials) Pattern claims Official denials | Pattern evidence

Exhibit G Complete VERY CRITICAL -

(Docket Entries) | Official Record | Al arguments | STRONG - Eliminates

Unimpeachable | factual disputes

WU 2 Jy pe. WAY Lut

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DEMHIBIPNA to this email because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits

attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all

documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply

to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/6/ 2025 at 11:40 AM and filed on 6/6/2025

Case Name: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Case Number: 3:24-cv-05307-VC

Filer:

Document Number: 62(No document attached)

Docket Text:

Minute En ys held before Judge Vince Chhabria: Further Case

Management Conference held via Zoom on 6/6/2025.

Defense counsel indicated that while plaintiff has been generally responsive, there

Total Time in Court: 5 minutes.

Court Reporter: Hearing recorded via Zoom: 10:48 - 10:53. Plaintiff Attorney: No

Appearance.

Defendant Attorney: Joseph Crittenden.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated

with this entry.) (bxs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/6/2025)

3:24-cv-05307-VC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Geronimo Velasco monongiko@aol.com

Jason Alex Geller jgeller@fisherphillips.com, lhamann@fisherphillips.com

Joseph M Crittenden _jcrittenden@fisherphillips.com, lwahlberg@fisherphillips.com

3:24-cv-05307-VC Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:

EXHIBIT A-1

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this email because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits

attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all

documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply

to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/6/2025 at 4:02 PM and filed on 6/6/2025

Case Name: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Case Number: 3:24-cv-05307-VC

Filer:

Document Number: 63

Docket Text:

ORDER to Show Cause. Response due June 20. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on

6/6/2025. (vcic1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2025)

Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing

(NEF)

3:24-cv-05307-VC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Geronimo Velasco monongiko@aol.com

Jason Alex Geller jgeller@fisherphillips.com, lhamann@fisherphillips.com

Joseph M Crittenden _jcrittenden@fisherphillips.com, lwahlberg@fisherphillips.com

3:24-cv-05307-VC Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document

Original filename:C:\fakepath\24-cv-05307-ve-order_to_show_cause.638848291759482196.pdf

Electronic document Stamp:

[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=6/6/2025] [FileNumber=22486781-0]

[b12bad378d3bbb2b869ab085340329f05f9c79903f11 c9fee20a68fab0fdf2£4571 a3

fb1a49e72f9c3a9981de28df4de157fb15e9c96b51d3cf152df5abd377c]|

EXHIBIT A-2

Case 3:24-cv-05307-VC Document63 Filed 06/06/25 Page1of1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERONIMO VELASCO, Case No. 24-cv-05307-VC

Plaintiff,

y ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PENTAGON TECHNOLOGIES GROUP,

INC.,

Defendant.

In light of his failure to communicate with the magistrate judge regarding scheduling a

settlement conference, as well as his failure to appear at the June 6, 2025, case management

conference, Velasco is ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. A written response to this order is due June 20. A hearing on this order will be held

via Zoom at 10am on Friday, June 27.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2025

MF a

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

EXHIBIT A-3

VVLILGLLU 1 y pe. WAU Litt

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this email because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits

attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all

documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply

to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/30/2025 at 3:19 PM and filed on 6/27/2025

Case Name: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Case Number: 3:24-cv-05307-VC

Filer:

Document Number: 68(N o document attached)

Docket Text:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vince Chhabria: Show Cause

Hearing held via Zoom on 6/27/2025.

Order to show cause is lifted. [65], [66] denied as moot.

Court encouraged parties to contact the magistrate judge immediately to tee up

any discovery issues.

Total Time in Court: 14 minutes.

Court Reporter: Hearing recorded via Zoom: 11:31 - 11:45.

Plaintiff Attorney: Geronimo Velasco (Pro Se).

Defendant Attorney: Joseph Crittenden.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated

with this entry.) (bxs, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/27/2025)

3:24-cv-05307-VC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Geronimo Velasco monongiko@aol.com

Jason Alex Geller _jgeller@fisherphillips.com, lhamann@fisherphillips.com

Joseph M Crittenden _jcrittenden@fisherphillips.com, lwahlberg@fisherphillips.com

3:24-cv-05307-VC Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:

EXHIBIT A-4

Content- 1ype: texv html

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this email because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits

attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all

documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply

to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 7/8/2025 at 3:33 PM and filed on 7/8/2025

Case Name: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Case Number: 3:24-cy-05307-VC

Filer:

Document Number: 76(No document attached)

Docket Text:

Order by Judge Vince Chhabria re Dkt. No. [75] Motion to Amend/Correct. The

motion is denied. The case management conference was not procedural lly defective

because ren elating ases stated that CM cokniesses ed cases would be

no prejudice from ‘the order to show cause because that order was discharged.

Velasco is warned that if he continues to file repetitive, frivolous motions, he may

be subject to sanctions. Signed on 7/8/25. (This is a text-only entry generated by the

court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (vcic3, COURT STAFF)

(Filed on 7/8/2025)

Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mall to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing

(NEF)

3:24-cv-05307-VC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Geronimo Velasco monongiko@aol.com

Jason Alex Geller jgeller@fisherphillips.com, lhamann@fisherphillips.com

Joseph M Crittenden _jcrittenden@fisherphillips.com, lwahlberg@fisherphillips.com

3:24-cv-05307-VC Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:

EXHIBIT A-5

5/2/25, 1:52 AM CAND-ECF

EXHIBIT B

MIME-Version:1.0

From: ECF-CAND@cand.uscourts.gov

To:efiling

Message-Id: <21870474@cand.uscourts.gov>

Subject:Activity in Case 3:24-cv-05307-VC Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc. Case Management Conference - Initial

Content-Type: text/html

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is

unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a

case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or

directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first

viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

US. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 11/15/2024 at 12:04 PM PST and filed on 11/15/2024

Case Name: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Case Number: 3:24-cy-05307-VC

Filer:

Document Number: 22(No document attached)

Docket Text:

Minute Entry fer proceedings held before Judge Vince Chhabria: Initial Case Management Conference held

via Zoom on 11/15/2024.

CASE REFERRED to randomly assigned Magistrate Judge for Discovery purposes.

Court set case schedule:

Amended Pleadings due by 1/31/2025.

Case Management Statement due by 5/30/2025.

Further Case Management Conference set for 6/6/2025 at 10:00 AM by Videoconference Only.

Close of Fact Discovery due by 6/30/2025.

Designation of Experts due by 9/8/2025.

Rebuttal Reports due by 9/22/2025.

Close of Expert Discovery due by 10/6/2025.

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motion Hearing set for 8/28/2025 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 04,

17th Floor before Judge Vince Chhabria.

Pretrial Conference set for 10/28/2025 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 04, 17th Floor before Judge

Vince Chhabria.

Jury Selection/Trial set for 11/10/2025 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 04, 17th Floor before Judge

Vince Chhabria.

Total Time in Court: 7 minutes.

Court Reporter: Hearing recorded via Zoom: 10:07 - 10:14.

Plaintiff Attorney: Geronimo Velasco (Pro Se).

Defendant Attorney: Caroline Dickey.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (bxs,

COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/15/2024)

3:24-cv-05307-VC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Caroline C. Dickey _ caroline.dickey@btlaw.com, monica.martinez@btlaw.com

Geronimo Velasco monongiko@aol.com

3:24-cv-05307-VC Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:

EXHIBIT B-1

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pI?8177659168722-L_1_0-1 ith

Case 3:24-cv-05307-VC Document 29 Filed 02/10/25 Page 1of1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELATED CASE ORDER

A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a

Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been

filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge assigned

to case

24-cv-05307-VC

Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case

assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not

related to the case assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case

for a related case determination.

Case Title Related | Not Related

25-cv-00680-SK | Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc. VC

ORDER

The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the

initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management

conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the

dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly.

Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be renoticed by the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local

Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to

govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned

judge.

Dated: February 10, 2025 By: _ Ae

Vince Chhabria

United States District Judge

EXHIBIT B-2

VULIR tn bY PO. WAY LU

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this email because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits

attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all

documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply

to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 2/10/2025 at 9:43 AM PST and filed on 2/10/2025

Case Name: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Case Number: 3:24-cv-05307-VC

Filer:

Document Number: 29

Docket Text:

ORDER RELATING CASES: 24-cv-05307-VC & 25-cv-00680-SK. Signed by Judge Vince

Chhabria on 2/10/2025. (bxs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2025)

Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing

(NEF)

3:24-cv-05307-VC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Caroline C. Dickey _caroline.dickey@btlaw.com, monica.martinez@btlaw.com

Geronimo Velasco monongiko@aol.com

Lucy Marie Bertino _ lucy.bertino@btlaw.com, docketinglitin@btlaw.com, melissa.turpin@btlaw.com

3:24-cv-05307-VC Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document

Original filename:C:\fakepath\24-5307, 25-680.pdf

Electronic document Stamp:

[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=2/10/2025] [FileNumber=22112180-0]

[90f4260b90eb57a1c29de5916d79debal d7f2e12a4ad21da325970cd97865ce86fa0

£830012ae9c1d0389315137dfe5257c7b900dab9e44aec98ae88a87348d2 |]

EXHIBIT B-3

lo Outlook

SERVICE: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc. | Case Management Conference

From Wahlberg, Leah <Iwahlberg@fisherphillips.com>

Date Fr 30-May-25 431 PM

To monongiko@aol.com <monongiko@aol.com>; monongiko@ymail.com <monongiko@ymail.com>

Cc = Crittenden, Joseph <jcrittenden@fisherphillips.com>; Geller, Jason <jgeller@fisherphillips.com>;

Hamann, Lisa <Ihamann@fisherphillips.com>

U 1 attachment (239 KB)

Re: Geronimo Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.,

U.S.D.C. for Northern District of California,

Case No: 24-cv-05307-VC (KAW)

On behalf of Joe Crittenden, please see the attached Case Management Conference

Statement submitted for filing by Defendant. Please note the Court’s CM/ECF system will

also send to your registered email address a Notice of Electronic Filing.

Thank you very much.

Leah Wahiberg

Legal Secretary to JOSEPH M. CRITTENDEN

Fisher

Phillips Fisher & Phillips LLP

One Montgomery Street | Suite 3400 | San Francisco | CA 94104

lwahlberg@fisherphillips.com | O: (415) 490-9010

Website On the Front Lines of Workplace Law™

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please

reply to advise the sender of the error, then immediately delete this message.

EXHIBIT B-4

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this email because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits

attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all

documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply

to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

US. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 2/10/2025 at 11:48 AM PST and filed on 2/10/2025

Case Name: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Case Number: 3:24-cv-05307-VC

Filer:

Document Number: 30(No document attached)

Docket Text:

This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar

information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vc

Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be

identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the

hearing. A list of names and emails must be sent to the CRD at vccrd@cand.uscourts.gov no

later than Friday, February 21, 2025, by no later than 12:00PM.

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or

videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court

proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely

prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this

entry.)(bxs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2025)

Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

3:24-cv-05307-VC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Caroline C. Dickey _ caroline.dickey@btlaw.com, monica.martinez@btlaw.com

Geronimo Velasco monongiko@aol.com

Lucy Marie Bertino _ lucy.bertino@btlaw.com, docketinglitin@btlaw.com, melissa.turpin@btlaw.comEXHIBIT B-5

SVUALLLOLILe 2b YPS. lOAY Litt

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this email because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits

attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all

documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply

to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Crittenden, Joseph on 5/30/2025 at 4:51 PM and filed on 5/30/2025

Case Name: Velasco v. Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Case Number: 3:24-cv-05307-VC

Filer: Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.

Document Number: 58

Docket Text:

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Pentagon Technologies Group, Inc.. (Crittenden,

Joseph) (Filed on 5/30/2025)

3:24-cv-05307-VC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Geronimo Velasco monongiko@aol.com

Jason Alex Geller jgeller@fisherphillips.com, lhamann@fisherphillips.com

Joseph M Crittenden —_jcrittenden@fisherphillips.com, |wahlberg@fisherphillips.com

3:24-cv-05307-VC Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description: Main Document

Original filename:C:\fakepath\2025-05-30 Def Case Management Statement (Velasco).pdf

Electronic document Stamp:

[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=5/30/2025] [FileNumber=22463774-0]

[86b130f92c2dd7f62ffcdd3 7bb98 8aacf2 1 1a3a63bf383847383499 1 5£55£3 1592ed

£622cc8a346621¢3a25360b7523a7094db5a7£4£5b3d2£955773 109ece92]]

EXHIBIT B-6

Case 3:24-€v°05307-VE"' 'Bétanent63 "Filed orbit Pass pe T'- y/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERONIMO VELASCO, Case No. 24-cv-05307-VC

Plaintiff,

y ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PENTAGON TECHNOLOGIES GROUP,

INC,,

Defendant.

In light of his failure to communicate with the magistrate judge regarding scheduling a

settlement conference, as well as his failure to appear at the June 6, 2025, case management

conference, Velasco is ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. A written response to this order is due June 20. A hearing on this order will be held

via Zoom at 10am on Friday, June 27.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2025

Semele. ical

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

EXHIB?

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-64]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]