Russell Greer v. Joshua Moon,
et al.
Case No. 2:24-cv-00421-DBB
U.S. District Court of Utah
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
- ECF 209. Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amendment complaint.
- ECF 242. Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a First Amendment complaint upon Defendants’ stipulation with Defendants that Plaintiff may not call new witnesses. (Docket text order.)
- ECF 245. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery until new defendants are served and dispositive motions resolved.
- ECR 247. Plaintiff amends complaint with two anonymous KF users.
- ECF 254. Defendants argue Plaintiff hasn’t filed a timely opposition to the motion to stay.
- ECF 255. Defendants’ motion for time extension due to new defendants.
- ECF 264. Plaintiff motions for time extension without specifying the specific motion.
- ECF 266. Defendants partially oppose Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time.
- ECF 273. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time as untimely.
- ECF 274. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amendment complaint under FRPC 12.
- ECF 275. Defendants file supplemental authority for their motion to stay discovery.
- ECF 283. The Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending ruling on the MTD.
- ECF 288. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion to dismiss as untimely and not meritorious.
- ECF 289. Defendants move for a time extension to file their reply memorandum of law to support their motion to dismiss. They hope the extension will allow pending rulings to render the motion moot, requesting an extension until June 30.
- ECF 290. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion for an extension of time, citing the Court’s previous denial to him. He claims Defense counsel is abusing the litigation process by publishing his family’s information and submitting open records requests.
- ECF 291. Defendants provide a point-by-point rebuttal to Plaintiff’s opposition to their motion.
- ECF 292. Court grants Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to June 30.
Motion for Sanctions for Nondisclosure of Discovery
- ECF 210. Defendants move to exclude undisclosed evidence and witnesses during discovery and seek case-ending sanctions against the Plaintiff.
- ECF 217. Plaintiff claims he “did the bare minimum required by FRCP 26, by providing an evidence list.” He says that “the evidence is substantial and Plaintiff is extremely busy.”
- ECF 218. Magistrate Bennet sanctions the Plaintiff for the amount of Defense’s attorney’s fees.
- ECF 221. Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Bennet’s order for sanctions.
- ECF 229. Defendants proffer to the Court Plaintiff’s statement that “I’m not paying you a dime,” “There is no reason why I am being forced to pay this,” and “You violated the SPO.”
- ECF 230. District Judge Barlow reduces Plaintiff’s sanctions from about $5,000 to $1,000.
- ECF 251. Plaintiff motions for a bonded stay pending appeal to the 10th Circuit.
- ECF 256. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for a bonded stay.
- ECF 283. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a bonded stay.
- ECF 304. Plaintiff again motions for a 10% bonded stay pending appeal to the 10th Circuit.
- ECF 305. Defendants request an extension to respond to Plaintiff’s bonded stay request and notify the Court of a forthcoming motion for sanctions under FRCP 11(c) regarding Plaintiff’s financial statements. This can’t be filed until June 10.
- ECF 310. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a bonded stay under FRCP 62(b) because sanctions are not a “judgment” and “lack of merit.” The Court orders Plaintiff to pay $1,000 to the Defendants no later than June 9. “Failure to do so may result in additional sanctions.”
Settlement Extortion Scheme
- ECF 213. Plaintiff claims that Mr. Moon has committed “a felony” because KF allegedly facilitates stalking, and that he would provide a case number “after he meets with detectives.”
- ECF 216. Plaintiff threatens to go after Defense counsel’s pro has vice status, which allows him to represent Defendants despite being an out-of-state attorney, due to counsel's “dishonesty.”
- ECF 244. Plaintiff claims that KF users “stalk” him and that two users sent him “death threats.” “Greer has offered twice to settle this case simply (sic) being removed from kiwi farms.”
- ECF 262. Defendants claim that “the Plaintiff has no good faith basis” to claim Mr. Moon has committed a felony. It appears he has not met with detectives or provided a case number.
- ECF 287. Defendants claim that Plaintiff has again threatened to report Defense counsel to the Virginia State Bar for not acceding to his settlement demand. Plaintiff has accused counsel of being involved with “bomb threats and pedophilia.” Defendants claim this is a pattern of abuse.
- ECF 321. Defendants claim that Plaintiff is attempting to extort them into a “settlement” by threatening criminal complaints. Plaintiff marked the relevant email as “attorneys (sic) eyes only,” which they claim is improper. Defendants demand that Plaintiff de-designate the email.
Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions
- ECF 234. Defendants’ motion for sanctions against Defendants under FRCP 11. They claim that Plaintiff made materially false pleadings to the Court claiming that (1) he had a witness who is “eager” to testify despite him being dead; and (2) that Defense counsel violated the SPO.
- ECF 239. Defendants supplement their motion for sanctions, claiming a pattern of litigation abuse on the part of the Plaintiff. (E.g., saying “there will be blood” to prior opposing counsel.)
- ECF 249. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion for sanctions, claiming he never read the SPO and relied on a “blanket assumption” about its workings. He alleges Defendants published confidential information on KF in violation of the SPO, also asserting such a statement is an “opinion” that shouldn’t warrant sanctions.
- ECF 252. Defendants provide a reply memorandum in support of their motion for sanctions.
- ECF 283. The Court takes the motion under advisement.
Plaintiff Must Produce Copy of Restraining Order
- ECF 243. Plaintiff motions for the Court to reconsider its motion to compel discovery.
- ECF 250. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.
- ECF 283. The Court orders Plaintiff to provide the 2018 restraining order (RO) against Mr. Greer.
- ECF 294. Plaintiff claims the RO is costly and irrelevant. He requests Defendants pay for the document or extend the compliance time.
- ECF 295. Defendants agree to Plaintiff’s motion for an additional 14 days to provide the RO, but oppose Plaintiff’s motion to be excused from complying.
- ECF 296. Court orders Plaintiff to provide a copy of the 2018 RO to Defendants by June 3.
- Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause
- ECF 298. Plaintiff requests an order requiring Defendants to show cause for not being sanctioned for their investigation into Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations to the Court.
- ECF 299. Plaintiff claims Defense counsel is sending him “threats” and that KF is sending him “death threats.” Plaintiff is now “considering criminal charges” against counsel for “stalking.”
- ECF 302. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause. They claim Plaintiff hasn’t specified which pleading violated FRCP 11, hasn’t complied by allowing counsel 21 days to withdraw offensive pleadings, and Defense counsel is only defending his clients. They also allege Plaintiff has selectively edited exhibits.
- ECF 303. Plaintiff claims that Defense counsel’s open records requests amount to “criminal stalking,” and “has to go down to the Las Vegas” police to file a report against counsel.
- ECF 306. Defendants claim that Plaintiff sent Defense counsel emails referring to him as “Mr. Stalker” and telling him to “Fuck off. Kindly.” Counsel submits that ECF 299 should be denied.
Suspected IFP Fraud
- ECF 253. Defendants motion to review Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status.
- ECF 267. Defendants proffer a CAD Report, showing that Defendant represented to the Nye County Sheriff’s Department “that he had significant financial resources” on Nov. 22, 2024.
- ECF 268. Defendants proffer the Defendant’s statement, “Yes, I have an LLC and have been working with investors.” They state that Plaintiff did not provide his “controlling interest in any LLC capable of purchasing millions of dollars worth of property” when seeking IFP status.
- ECF 283. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to review Plaintiff’s IFP status, and finds that Plaintiff can pay the filing fee while still supporting himself. Failure to pay the fee will mean dismissal. The Court denies Defendants’ motion to review the Plaintiff’s IFP status as moot.
- ECF 286. Defendants provide a record that Plaintiff paid a filing fee in Nevada State Court.
- ECF 311. Plaintiff pays the full filing fee of $405.00 by the June 5 deadline. (Docket text.)
- ECF 313. Defendants request leave to view Plaintiff’s IFP application, which is currently under seal. Defendants wish to investigate whether Plaintiff misled the Court, noting the Plaintiff’s admission in a prior case that he was wealthy enough to spend “$14,000 at brothels,” pay the filing fees for his other cases in state court, and found his own real estate development firm.
- ECF 315. Plaintiff claims that Defense counsel has lied to the Court about Plaintiff’s inability to pay the $1,000 sanction. He claims that his $5,000 savings is “money reserved for business.” He claims that challenging his IFP status is untimely and moot because he paid the filing fee.
- ECF 317. Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s recent filings establish that he was wealthier in 2020 than today and therefore, that his initial IFP filing may have contained misrepresentations.
- ECF 318. Plaintiff claims that he made $16/hr in Sep 2020 and now makes $14/hr. He claims that his 2020 expenses include a Los Vegas security deposit and rent, Utah rent, utility bills, car expenses, etc. He claims that he used his 2020 stimulus check to pay for his AGT audition.
- ECF 319. Plaintiff claims that he filed suit in Sep 2020 because of a three-year statute of limitations on copyright infringement. He claims the book was published in Oct 2017.
- ECF 320. Plaintiff claims that he cannot produce a receipt of his U-Haul rental expenses because of their data retention policy, but that his social media post corroborates his rental.
- ECF 323. Plaintiff claims that he did not commit IFP fraud, that his financial situation changed due to (e.g.) an auto loan and relocation expenses, and that Defendants are harassing him.
Winnemucca Prostitution Scheme
- ECF 276. Plaintiff files an “EMERGENCY REQUEST for a continuance” claiming that he has a “business meeting in rural Nevada” and the Defense has been allowed to postpone deadlines.
- ECF 277. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion as without good cause and prejudicial.
- ECF 278. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to continue. “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of any emergency that warrants a continuance.” (Docket text only.)
- ECF 293. Defendants claim that the Plaintiff’s representations that he had an “emergency” requiring a rescheduling of the Court’s May 6 hearing were a “complete fabrication.”
- ECF 314. Plaintiff claims that he “accidentally scheduled” the Winnemucca city counsel meeting on the same day as the Court hearing. He claims that Defense counsel is “harassing innocent people.” Plaintiff motions for a protective order against Defense counsel and the Defendants under FRPC 26(c) “before he goes to the Las Vegas Police.”
- ECF 316. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for an “emergency” protective order because FRCP 26(c) applies to discovery, but discovery has been almost entirely stayed. Defendants claim they are not seeing discovery, except from Plaintiff to the extent allowed by ECF 283.
- ECF 322. Plaintiff claims that he “has got the Las Vegas police involved” because people are emailing the “Winnemucca realtor.” He requests a protective order against Defense counsel.
- ECF 324. Plaintiff claims that Defendants are violating the Court’s discovery stay by submitting open records requests stay, and that the city council’s refusal to change its agenda constituted an “emergency.” Plaintiff renews his request for a protective order.
Upcoming Deadlines
- June 3. Plaintiff must produce a copy of the restraining order to Defendants, who will update the Court within seven days.
- June 4. “Attorney’s Eyes Only” email will be automatically de-designated if Plaintiff does not provide Defendants with an explanation of why the designation is appropriate under the SPO.
- June 9. Plaintiff must pay Defendants their awarded sanctions (a gross amount of $1,000).
- June 10. Defendants can file their motion for additional sanctions for IFP misrepresentations.
- June 30. Defendants must file their memorandum of law in support of the motion of dismissal.
