Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Agrawal v. Peter

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

August 9, 2019

KRIS K. AGRAWAL Plaintiff
v.
DIETER PETER, ANDREW VON KURSELL, RAFAEL PINEDO, MINERAL HILL INDUSTRIES, LTD., DIANA BLACKWELL, BILL WINSETT, TAMMY WINSETT, B. K. HOLDINGS, LLC, SUSAN CONRAD, and, SEVERAL TORTFEASORS Defendants.

          ORDER

          TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff's Petition for Leave to File a Pro Se Action [Doc. No. 1] in compliance with the filing restrictions imposed by this Court in Order [Doc. No. 25] (“Filing Restrictions Order”) in Agrawal v. Walker, et al., No. CIV-18-1133-D. Plaintiff requests leave to file a Complaint [Doc. No. 2] incorporating a state court petition [Doc. No. 2-1].[1] Complaint at ¶15. The Court determines that the Petition for Leave must be denied.

         DISCUSSION

         In the Court's Filing Restrictions Order, Plaintiff was enjoined from filing “arguments that are frivolous” and unwarranted by existing law. Filing Restrictions Order at 3. The purpose of the Filing Restrictions Order was to “prevent Plaintiff Agrawal from continuing to file improper challenges related to the [administrative law judge]'s award” in favor of Chris Holland against Energy Production Services, LLC.[2] Id. at 2. An examination of the Complaint, state court petition, and exhibits demonstrate that Plaintiff is attempting to circumvent the Court's injunction by asserting yet another challenge to this state court judgment.

         Plaintiff's Complaint incorporates a state court cause of action challenging the state court judgment affirming the administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) award to Chris Holland which was the subject of the Filing Restrictions Order. Complaint at ¶15; Petition [Doc. No. 2-1] at 9 (“Fifth Cause of Action”). In support of this prohibited claim, Plaintiff attaches to his Complaint various documents relating to the Oklahoma Department of Labor wage dispute resulting in the judgment in Mr. Holland's favor. Exhibit D “No Judgment Against Energy Production Services, LLC., ” [Doc. No. 2-4].

         Plaintiff's intention to challenge the judgment is further evidenced by his inclusion of Mr. Holland as an intended defendant in the Complaint. Although Mr. Holland is not a named defendant in the caption of the Complaint: (1) he is a named defendant in the state court petition incorporated in the Complaint; and, (2) Plaintiff caused a summons to be issued to Mr. Holland in the state court proceedings on June 27, 2019.[3] Petition at 1, 9. The Court concludes that Plaintiff's inclusion of unnamed “several tortfeasors” in the caption of the Complaint likely includes Mr. Holland.

         The Court further finds that Plaintiff's burial of the prohibited claim and the identification of Mr. Holland as an intended defendant by incorporation of the state court petition is the latest of many attempts to camouflage the intent to challenge the state court judgment in Mr. Holland's favor.[4]

         Plaintiff's Complaint is in violation of the Filing Restrictions Order.[5] Therefore, Plaintiff's Petition for Leave must be denied.

         CONCLUSION

         For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Petition for Leave to File Pro-Se Action [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED

---------

Notes:

[1] Petition, Agrawal, et al., v. Conrad, et. al., CJ-2019-95, Okmulgee County, June ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.