Wells

Wells v. Maplebear Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 20243:23-cv-06263California544 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

LANCE C. WELLS,

10 Case No. 23-cv-06263-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 SANCTIONS, GRANTING MOTION MAPLEBEAR INC. dba INSTACART, 50 TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 Beale St. #600, San Francisco, CA 94105,

14 Defendant.

15 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 16 Plaintiff Lance C. Wells moves for sanctions against counsel for Defendant Maplebear Inc. 17 (“Instacart”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This action was dismissed on 18 February 9, 2024, on res judicata grounds. Wells argues Instacart’s counsel should be sanctioned 19 for alleged misrepresentations relating to, among other things, the bases upon which another 20 federal court previously dismissed Wells’ claims. This motion is suitable for disposition without 21 oral argument, and the motion hearing set for March 14, 2024, is vacated. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 22 The motion for sanctions is denied. 23 Sanctions are an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.