Abera v. San Diego Pacificvu LLC et al

1
3:25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AMAN ABERA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAN DIEGO PACIFICVU LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VACATE VOID JUDGMENT
UNDER RULE 60(b)(4) AND RULE
60(d)(3)
[Doc. 25]
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Aman Abera’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Vacate
Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3) (“Motion to Vacate”). (Doc. 15.)
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 25) is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed three identical actions in this Court asserting the same claims arising
from an unlawful detainer matter adjudicated in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, captioned as San Diego PacificVu LLC v. Abera, Case No. 24UD014810C
(the “Unlawful Detainer Action”). 	(See Doc. 1 at 1–2.) 	On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed
the first civil action before this Court. 	Abera v. PacificVU LLC et al., Case No. 25-cv-
01437-RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2025), ECF No. 1 (“Abera I”). 	Plaintiff filed his
second duplicative action on June 18, 2025. Abera v. PacificVU LLC et al., 3:25-cv-01488-
Case 3:25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB Document 36 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
3:25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2025), ECF No. 1 (“Abera II”). He then filed the instant
action (“Abera III”) on July 31, 2025. (Doc. 1.)
Between August and October 2025, Plaintiff filed a total of four substantially related
motions to vacate in the actions before this Court, including the instant Motion to Vacate
(Doc. 25). 	The Court recently dismissed two out of the four motions to vacate filed in
Abera II (“Abera II Order”). See Abera II, ECF No. 32. As the pertinent facts remain the
same, the Court incorporates its Abera II Order by reference which sets forth the relevant
factual and procedural background of Plaintiff’s three duplicative actions in this Court.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b) “allows for relief from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for any of six reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered
in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.” 	Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int’l, Inc., 31 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022)
(citing Hanson v. Shubert, 968 F.3d 1014, 1017 n.1 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up)).
The moving party “bears the burden of proving the existence of a justification for
Rule 60(b) relief.” Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988); United States
v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1130–31 (E.D. Cal. 2001). 	That party
must show “more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision[;] recapitulation of the
cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to
carry the moving party’s burden.” Westlands Water, 134 F. Supp. 2d at 1131 (cleaned up).
III. 	DISCUSSION
On August 18, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismissed his
Complaint on screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, and for seeking relief against immune
defendants (“Dismissal Order”). (Doc. 14 at 5–7.) As in his other motions to vacate filed
in Abera I and Abera II, Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Court’s Dismissal Order under Rule
Case 3:25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB Document 36 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
3:25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3). 	(Doc. 25 at 2–3.) 	In the instant Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff
reasserts the same Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3) arguments made in the motions to
vacate that he filed in Abera I and Abera II including that his “protective notice of appeal
. . . divest[ed] [this Court] of jurisdiction,” that the undersigned was automatically
“disqualified” by a motion to disqualify that he filed in Abera II, and that the Ninth Circuit
“misclassified” his motions and notices of appeals. (Doc. 25 at 2–3.) 1
The Court has already addressed and rejected the same arguments in Plaintiff’s
substantially similar motions to vacate filed in Abera I and in Abera II. See Abera I, ECF
No. 23 at 2–4 (“Abera I Order”); Abera II, ECF No. 32 at 4–9. 	The Court therefore
incorporates its Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3) analysis as set forth in the Abera I Order
and the Abera II Order. For the same reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to provide
a basis to vacate the Dismissal Order in this case and relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule
60(d)(3) is unwarranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate is DENIED.
Additionally, in its Dismissal Order in this case as well as in its Abera I Order and
Abera II Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that he may be deemed a vexatious litigant if he
made any further duplicative filings in this Court and will do so again here. (Doc. 14 at 8);
see Abera II, ECF No. 32 at 9. This is Plaintiff’s final warning. Plaintiff has filed three
duplicative actions in this District, four improper appeals with the Ninth Circuit, and
countless filings in each of those actions. 	Each action has been meritless and resolved
against Plaintiff. 	Yet, Plaintiff has continued to abuse the judicial process and consume
this Court’s time and resources with frivolous litigation. If Plaintiff continues to do so, the
Court will issue an Order to Show Cause as to why it should not institute a prefiling bar
requiring him to seek approval before he can file any further lawsuits.
1 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed the motion to disqualify in Abera II, not in this action.
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
presents no argument or legal authority for such contention. (See Doc. 25 at 2–3.)
Case 3:25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB Document 36 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
3:25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 25),
DIRECTS the Clerk to accept no further documents for filing in this closed case, except
for a timely-filed Notice of Appeal, which the Court CERTIFIES would not be taken in
good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 3, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01937-RBM-DEB Document 36 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4