In re: Giga Watt Inc., v. Mark D. Waldron, Chapter 7 Panel Trustee

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00077
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Nov 20, 2025 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 10 In re: GIGA WATT INC., 11 Debtor. No. 2:25-CV-00077-SAB 12 13 JUN DAM, ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS 14 Appellant, 15 v. 16 MARK D. WALDRON, Chapter 7 17 Panel Trustee, 18 Appellee. 19 Before the Court are Appellant’s Motions for Reconsideration and to Stay 20 Proceedings, ECF Nos. 14 and 21, as well as Appellee’s Motions for Order to 21 Show Cause and for Judicial Notice, ECF Nos. 18 and 19. Appellant is pro se. 22 Appellee is represented by Pamela Egan. The motions were considered without 23 oral argument. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On March 6, 2025, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in the U.S. District 26 Court for the Eastern District of Washington. On April 9, 2025, this Court issued 27 an Order to Show Cause, directing appellant to provide briefing as to why the 28 appeal should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal 1 Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1). Appellant did not respond to the Show 2 Cause Order, and the Court subsequently dismissed the case on May 1, 2025, for 3 lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 4 8002(a)(1). 5 On May 2, 2025, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order 6 of Dismissal. On May 12, 2025, Appellee filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause, 7 and a related Motion for Judicial Notice. On May 20, 2025, Appellant filed a 8 Motion to Stay Proceedings in this matter, pending the outcome of a related case 9 on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Court shall address each Motion in turn. 10 APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 11 When determining whether reconsideration is appropriate, district courts 12 look at whether (1) there is “newly discovered evidence”; (2) if it “committed clear 13 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust”; or (3) if “there is an intervening 14 change in controlling law.” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th 15 Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 16 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” 17 Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). In the 18 end, the decision is at the discretion of the district court. See Navajo Nation v. 19 Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 20 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 Appellant moves the Court to reconsider its dismissal of this matter for lack 22 of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that (1) the matter should not have been 23 dismissed before he was afforded an opportunity to respond to Appellee’s Motion 24 to Dismiss and (2) this Court misapplied Rule 8002(a)(2). 25 As a preliminary matter, Appellant’s argument regarding a response to 26 Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss falls flat: that motion was dismissed as moot 27 because the Court found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and thus neither 28 the motion, nor a response from Appellant, was necessary. Moreover, Appellant’s 1 Motion for Reconsideration does not present newly discovered evidence, cites to 2 no binding authority that this Court committed a clear error, or that there has been 3 an intervening case in controlling law. The motion is denied. 4 APPELLANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 5 District courts have an inherent power to control their dockets. See U.S. v. 6 W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008). This power includes the authority 7 to stay proceedings when the moving party demonstrates that it would suffer a 8 clear hardship or inequity if forced to proceed in the matter. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 9 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). 10 Here, this matter was already dismissed due to this Court’s lack of 11 jurisdiction, the Court herein denied Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration, and 12 the file thus remains closed. Appellant cannot possibly demonstrate a hardship or 13 inequity in being forced to proceed considering that the matter has been dismissed 14 and no further action has been requested by the Court. The motion is denied. 15 APPELLEE’S MOTIONS 16 District courts may sanction a litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 when the 17 party moving for sanctions demonstrates that the litigant acted in bad faith. Wages 18 v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230, 1235–36 (9th Cir. 1990). Bad faith exists “when an 19 attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument[] or argues a 20 meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent.” In re Keegan Mgmt. 21 Co., Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). In other words, 22 for the purpose of sanctions under § 1927, a frivolous filing is automatically 23 considered reckless and thus in bad faith, while a non-frivolous finding must be 24 intended to harass in order to be found in bad faith. Id. In addition to § 1927, 25 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8020 permits district courts to sanction a 26 litigant for filing a bankruptcy appeal that the court determines is frivolous or for 27 failing to comply with a court order. However, when a court finds that it lacks 28 subject matter jurisdiction, that court is foreclosed from making rulings on the 1 merits of a case. See Wages, 915 F.2d at 1234. 2 Here, Appellee moves this Court to issue an order to show cause as to why 3 Appellant should not be found in contempt and sanctioned pursuant to both 28 4 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 8020. Appellee contends that sanctions are appropriate 5 because Appellant (1) defied this Court’s Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 5, (2) 6 made misrepresentations to the Court, and (3) submitted fabricated legal theory 7 generated by artificial intelligence (“AI”). 8 With regard to the Order to Show Cause, it is true Appellant failed to show 9 cause, but the Court subsequently dismissed the matter in Appellee’s favor, making 10 it difficult to see how Appellant’s conduct warrants sanctions. With regard to 11 Appellant’s alleged misrepresentations, the Court notes that Appellant is pro se and 12 the filings appear to indicate a misunderstanding of the law as opposed to an 13 attempt to mislead the Court; moreover, the Court has dismissed this matter for 14 lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is thus foreclosed from reviewing the merits 15 of the case. Finally, Appellee Contends that Appellant cited to cases for different 16 legal holdings than what those cases actually stood for. Notably, there are no 17 allegations that the cases were completely fabricated or otherwise “hallucinated” 18 by AI, and the Court notes that even trained attorneys often cite to cases with the 19 mistaken belief that the holding supports their assertion. Moreover, Appellant has 20 already been declared a vexatious litigant by the Bankruptcy Court and subjected 21 to substantial sanctions. 22 In light of this posture and Appellant’s pro se status, the Motion for Order to 23 Show Cause is denied, and the Motion for Judicial Notice is dismissed as moot. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 25 1. Appellant’s Motions for Reconsideration and to Stay Proceedings, 26 ECF Nos. 14 and 21, are DENIED. 27 2. Appellee’s Motions for Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 18 is 28 DENIED. 1 3. Appellee’s Motion for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 19, is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to pro se Appellant, and keep the file closed. 5 DATED this 20th day of November 2025.

sin in phar 9 Chief United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28