Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 AMAN ABERA, Case No.: 25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. VACATE VOID JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(b)(4) AND RULE 13 SAN DIEGO PACIFICVU LLC, et al., 60(d)(3) 14 Defendants. [Doc. 25] 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Aman Abera’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Vacate 18 Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3) (“Motion to Vacate”). (Doc. 15.) 19 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 25) is DENIED. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff filed three identical actions in this Court asserting the same claims arising 22 from an unlawful detainer matter adjudicated in the Superior Court of California, County 23 of San Diego, captioned as San Diego PacificVu LLC v. Abera, Case No. 24UD014810C 24 (the “Unlawful Detainer Action”). (See Doc. 1 at 1–2.) On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed 25 the first civil action before this Court. Abera v. PacificVU LLC et al., Case No. 25-cv- 26 01437-RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2025), ECF No. 1 (“Abera I”). Plaintiff filed his 27 second duplicative action on June 18, 2025. Abera v. PacificVU LLC et al., 3:25-cv-01488- 28 1 RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2025), ECF No. 1 (“Abera II”). He then filed the instant 2 action (“Abera III”) on July 31, 2025. (Doc. 1.) 3 Between August and October 2025, Plaintiff filed a total of four substantially related 4 motions to vacate in the actions before this Court, including the instant Motion to Vacate 5 (Doc. 25). The Court recently dismissed two out of the four motions to vacate filed in 6 Abera II (“Abera II Order”). See Abera II, ECF No. 32. As the pertinent facts remain the 7 same, the Court incorporates its Abera II Order by reference which sets forth the relevant 8 factual and procedural background of Plaintiff’s three duplicative actions in this Court. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b) “allows for relief from a final 11 judgment, order, or proceeding for any of six reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 12 or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered 13 in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct; (4) the 14 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason that justifies 15 relief.” Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int’l, Inc., 31 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) 16 (citing Hanson v. Shubert, 968 F.3d 1014, 1017 n.1 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up)). 17 The moving party “bears the burden of proving the existence of a justification for 18 Rule 60(b) relief.” Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988); United States 19 v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1130–31 (E.D. Cal. 2001). That party 20 must show “more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision[;] recapitulation of the 21 cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to 22 carry the moving party’s burden.” Westlands Water, 134 F. Supp. 2d at 1131 (cleaned up). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 On August 18, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismissed his 25 Complaint on screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous, for lack of subject 26 matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, and for seeking relief against immune 27 defendants (“Dismissal Order”). (Doc. 14 at 5–7.) As in his other motions to vacate filed 28 in Abera I and Abera II, Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Court’s Dismissal Order under Rule 1 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3). (Doc. 25 at 2–3.) In the instant Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff 2 reasserts the same Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3) arguments made in the motions to 3 vacate that he filed in Abera I and Abera II including that his “protective notice of appeal 4 . . . divest[ed] [this Court] of jurisdiction,” that the undersigned was automatically 5 “disqualified” by a motion to disqualify that he filed in Abera II, and that the Ninth Circuit 6 “misclassified” his motions and notices of appeals. (Doc. 25 at 2–3.)1 7 The Court has already addressed and rejected the same arguments in Plaintiff’s 8 substantially similar motions to vacate filed in Abera I and in Abera II. See Abera I, ECF 9 No. 23 at 2–4 (“Abera I Order”); Abera II, ECF No. 32 at 4–9. The Court therefore 10 incorporates its Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3) analysis as set forth in the Abera I Order 11 and the Abera II Order. For the same reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to provide 12 a basis to vacate the Dismissal Order in this case and relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 13 60(d)(3) is unwarranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate is DENIED. 14 Additionally, in its Dismissal Order in this case as well as in its Abera I Order and 15 Abera II Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that he may be deemed a vexatious litigant if he 16 made any further duplicative filings in this Court and will do so again here. (Doc. 14 at 8); 17 see Abera II, ECF No. 32 at 9. This is Plaintiff’s final warning. Plaintiff has filed three 18 duplicative actions in this District, four improper appeals with the Ninth Circuit, and 19 countless filings in each of those actions. Each action has been meritless and resolved 20 against Plaintiff. Yet, Plaintiff has continued to abuse the judicial process and consume 21 this Court’s time and resources with frivolous litigation. If Plaintiff continues to do so, the 22 Court will issue an Order to Show Cause as to why it should not institute a prefiling bar 23 requiring him to seek approval before he can file any further lawsuits. 24 25 26 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed the motion to disqualify in Abera II, not in this action. 27 See Abera II, ECF No. 16. Plaintiff also contends that a motion to vacate filed in Abera II somehow prevented the Court from ruling on his applications in the instant action but 28 l IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 25), 3 || DIRECTS the Clerk to accept no further documents for filing in this closed case, except 4 || for a timely-filed Notice of Appeal, which the Court CERTIFIES would not be taken in 5 || good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATE: February 3, 2026 g ak Bemus, Micteryy □ 9 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ'MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28