Gremmels v. Apple Inc.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided June 10, 2025·No. 4:25-cv-03722·Unknown

Opinion

CHRISTIAN GREMMELS, Case No. 25-cv-03722-LJC

Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING RESPONSE TO v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

APPLE INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 9 Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Christian Gremmels’ Response to the Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff’s correspondence regarding PACER fees. ECF Nos. 7, 9. At ECF No. 6, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than June 4, 2025. Rather than file an amended Complaint, Plaintiff mailed a response to the Order to Show Cause to the undersigned magistrate judge, which she received on June 6, 2025. The Court advises Plaintiff that to file documents via mail, he must send the documents to the Clerk’s Office at United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Ave., 16th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94102. He cannot mail documents directly to the undersigned for filing. As a courtesy to Plaintiff, and given Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court redirected Plaintiff’s response to the Clerk’s Office for filing. His response has since been filed on the docket. See ECF No. 9. Going forward, any documents mailed to the undersigned rather than the Clerk’s Office run the risk of not being filed on the docket. Plaintiff’s response includes a number of questions to the undersigned magistrate judge regarding her Order to Show Cause. See ECF No. 9 at 3-5. The Court cannot provide Plaintiff 2016 WL 97450, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2016) (citing Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004)). The Court encourages Plaintiff to seek free legal assistance from the Northern District’s Legal Help Center as he proceeds with this litigation. The Legal Help Center can be reached by calling (415) 782-8982 or by emailing fedpro@sfbar.org, and appointments can be held in-person or remotely. Plaintiff may also wish to consult the resources for pro se litigants on the Court’s website, https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/, including the manual, “Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants.” This manual for pro se litigants can be downloaded from the Court’s website at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-handbook/. Given Plaintiff’s questions regarding the Order to Show Cause, as well as the alleged delay in receiving the Court’s Order, the Court extends Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended Complaint to July 28, 2025. The Court directs Plaintiff to the template and instructions regarding writing and filing a civil complaint, available online at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp- content/uploads/forms/General-Complaint_Packet.pdf. If Plaintiff does not file an amended Complaint, or if his amended Complaint does not correct the defects identified in the Court’s Order to Show Cause at ECF No. 6, the undersigned may recommend dismissal of this action. The Court construes Plaintiff’s correspondence regarding PACER fees as a request for a waiver of PACER fees. ECF No. 7. PACER fee exemptions are available only upon a showing that “an exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information.” Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule ¶ 9, United States Courts (Dec. 31, 2019) https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule. Plaintiff has not made such a showing and his application for a PACER fee exemption is DENIED without prejudice. Although the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, in forma pauperis status alone does not support a request to waive PACER fees. Plaintiff states that he needs a PACER exemption to electronically file documents on the case docket. ECF No. 7. However, Plaintiff may file documents electronically without cost by registering as a user on the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system. 1 Additionally, Chapter Nine of Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se 2 Litigants provides instructions on how to e-file documents. 3 5 Dated: June 10, 2025 6 7 L J. CI OS 8 ed States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 a 12

(«17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Gremmels v. Apple Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Gremmels v. Apple Inc. (Gremmels v. Apple Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pliler v. Ford
542 U.S. 225 (Supreme Court, 2004)