Wells v. Maplebear Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 LANCE C. WELLS, 10 Case No. 23-cv-06263-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 SANCTIONS, GRANTING MOTION MAPLEBEAR INC. dba INSTACART, 50 TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 Beale St. #600, San Francisco, CA 94105, 14 Defendant. 15 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 16 Plaintiff Lance C. Wells moves for sanctions against counsel for Defendant Maplebear Inc. 17 (“Instacart”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This action was dismissed on 18 February 9, 2024, on res judicata grounds. Wells argues Instacart’s counsel should be sanctioned 19 for alleged misrepresentations relating to, among other things, the bases upon which another 20 federal court previously dismissed Wells’ claims. This motion is suitable for disposition without 21 oral argument, and the motion hearing set for March 14, 2024, is vacated. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 22 The motion for sanctions is denied. 23 Sanctions are an “extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution.” 24 Operating Eng'rs Pension Tr. v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988). Counsel for 25 Instacart accurately and explicitly noted the bases for the Arizona federal court’s dismissal of 26 Wells’ claims several times in its motion to dismiss.1 Counsel for Defendant also supplied that 27 1 decision in its request for judicial notice of the Arizona court’s decision. See Dkt. 15. It is possible 2 counsel for Instacart could have been more precise, at times, in stating the bases for the Arizona 3 district court’s dismissal of each of Wells’ claims, but this is no basis for a sanctions motion. 4 || Wells’ other arguments about counsel’s alleged misrepresentations are unpersuasive, and the 5 || motion for sanctions is denied. 6 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 7 Wells has moved for leave to pursue his appeal in this matter in forma pauperis. A party 8 || seeking to pursue an appeal in forma pauperis “must file a motion in the district court” and attach 9 || an affidavit that “(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the 10 || party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; 11 and (C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). 12 || Wells has met these requirements. He has submitted a Form 4 detailing his inability to pay and 5 13 || explained the basis for his appeal. Though an argument could be made Wells’ appeal is frivolous, S 14 || under the circumstances, Wells’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. a 16 || ITISSO ORDERED. 18 Dated: February 28, 2024 19 Fold Shon RICHARD SEEBORG 20 Chief United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 * his Civil Rights Act of 1964 claim.”); id. at 15 n.2 (“While Judge Marquez[] dismissed □□□□□□□□□□□ 26 || First Amendment claim with prejudice under FRCP 12(b)(6) rather than compelling it to arbitration, because it arose out of Plaintiff's relationship with Instacart, it was also covered by the 97 || Arbitration Provision.”). 98 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS . CASE No. 23-cv-06263-RS