Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc

W.D. Washington

Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc

DecidedNovember 3, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01257

StatusUnknown

This text of Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc (Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ARTUR SARGSYAN, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-1257-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 AMAZON.COM INC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Artur Sargsyan has repeatedly filed frivolous motions, attempting to 14 proceed with this case even though Defendant has not been served. Dkt. Nos. 17; 19; 15 21; 22; 26; 28. On October 22, 2025, the Court warned Sargsyan that if he kept 16 filing these frivolous motions, the Court would impose filing restrictions or 17 sanctions. Dkt. No. 29. On October 28, 2025, despite the Court’s warning, Sargsyan 18 moved for default judgment. Dkt. No. 31. He also emailed chambers, ex parte, 19 requesting the same relief. 20 “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables 21 one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to 22 consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 23 1 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). To that end, district courts have inherent power to enter 2 pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive litigation histories.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 4 1999). Such an order should be entered only when (1) the litigant has received 5 notice and a chance to be heard before the order is entered, (2) there is “an adequate 6 record for review,” (3) the court has made “substantive findings as to the frivolous or 7 harassing nature of the litigant’s actions,” and (4) the vexatious litigant order is 8 narrowly tailored to the litigant’s wrongful behavior. DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147–48.

9 The Court notified Sargsyan that it would impose filing restrictions if he 10 continued to file meritless motions in this case. Dkt. No. 29. Sargsyan subsequently 11 filed a baseless motion, thus reflecting his complete indifference to the Court’s 12 admonitions. Second, there is an adequate record to demonstrate Sargsyan’s 13 frivolous conduct, and his rampant disregard for the Court’s previous orders. See 14 Dkt. No. 31. Finally, given Sargsyan’s repeated abuses, the Court finds it necessary 15 to enter an order limiting his ability to make frivolous filings in this case.

16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Sargsyan to SHOW CAUSE by November 17 17, 2025, why the Court should not find that he is a vexatious litigant and impose 18 filing restrictions against him in this case. DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147–48. Failure to 19 show cause on or before the deadline will result in a vexatious litigant finding and 20 filing restrictions. 21 The Court FURTHER ORDERS Plaintiff to comply with Local Civil Rule 7

22 when requesting relief—Plaintiff may not email the Court ex parte to request relief. 23 The motion at Dkt. No. 31 is DENIED. 1 The Clerk is directed to place this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s

9 calendar for 14 days from the date of this Order.

3 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.

fea — 5 amal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ARTUR SARGSYAN, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-1257-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 AMAZON.COM INC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Artur Sargsyan has repeatedly filed frivolous motions, attempting to 14 proceed with this case even though Defendant has not been served. Dkt. Nos. 17; 19; 15 21; 22; 26; 28. On October 22, 2025, the Court warned Sargsyan that if he kept 16 filing these frivolous motions, the Court would impose filing restrictions or 17 sanctions. Dkt. No. 29. On October 28, 2025, despite the Court’s warning, Sargsyan 18 moved for default judgment. Dkt. No. 31. He also emailed chambers, ex parte, 19 requesting the same relief. 20 “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables 21 one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to 22 consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 23 1 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). To that end, district courts have inherent power to enter 2 pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive litigation histories.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 4 1999). Such an order should be entered only when (1) the litigant has received 5 notice and a chance to be heard before the order is entered, (2) there is “an adequate 6 record for review,” (3) the court has made “substantive findings as to the frivolous or 7 harassing nature of the litigant’s actions,” and (4) the vexatious litigant order is 8 narrowly tailored to the litigant’s wrongful behavior. DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147–48.

9 The Court notified Sargsyan that it would impose filing restrictions if he 10 continued to file meritless motions in this case. Dkt. No. 29. Sargsyan subsequently 11 filed a baseless motion, thus reflecting his complete indifference to the Court’s 12 admonitions. Second, there is an adequate record to demonstrate Sargsyan’s 13 frivolous conduct, and his rampant disregard for the Court’s previous orders. See 14 Dkt. No. 31. Finally, given Sargsyan’s repeated abuses, the Court finds it necessary 15 to enter an order limiting his ability to make frivolous filings in this case.