Pontier v. GEICO Insurance et al

1
21cv199-LL-DDL
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
DAVID PONTIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEICO INSURANCE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 21cv199-LL-DDL
ORDER DENYING PENDING
MOTIONS AS MOOT
[ECF Nos. 163, 164, 165, 172]
In light of the Court’s March 2, 2026 Order dismissing this case [ECF No. 173], all
pending motions filed by Plaintiff are DENIED AS MOOT [ECF Nos. 163, 164, 165,
172]. Alternatively, the Court also finds as follows:
1. “Motion to Vacate Order of Transfer due to Judicial Misconduct” [ECF No. 163]
and “Motion to Vacate Void Transfer, Vacate All Post-Transfer Orders and Return Case
to the District of Nevada” [ECF No. 172] are substantially similar and rely on the allegation
that this district never had subject matter jurisdiction over the related interpleader case of
Dang v. Pontier, No. 19cv1519-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024). These Motions are
DENIED for the same reason that the substantially same allegations were previously
denied in the related case. See Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Denying Motion for
Change of Venue, Dang v. Pontier, No. 19cv1519-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2024),
Case 3:21-cv-00199-LL-DDL Document 174 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
21cv199-LL-DDL
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
ECF No. 220 (finding the court had jurisdiction over the interpleader complaint); Order
Granting 	Defendant 	Pontier’s 	Motion 	for 	Default 	Judgment 	and 	Denying 	Without
Prejudice Request for Damages, Dang v. Pontier, No. 19cv1519-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.
July 22, 2020), ECF No. 98 at 6 (finding the court had jurisdiction over the interpleader
complaint).
2. 	“Motion to Vacate Order Setting Aside Default (Dkt 100)” [ECF No. 164] is
DENIED 	for 	the 	same 	reasons 	the 	same 	arguments 	were 	previously 	denied 	on
March 27, 2025. ECF No. 155 (Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Granting
State Bar of California’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment).
3. “Motion for Recusal” [ECF No. 165] is DENIED for the same reasons the same
arguments were previously denied on March 27, 2025. ECF No. 157 (Order Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal); Order Denying David Pontier’s Motion for Recusal, Dang
v. Pontier, No. 19cv1519-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal. March 27, 2025), ECF No. 225.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2026
Case 3:21-cv-00199-LL-DDL Document 174 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2