Johnson v. Amazon.com Services LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DAVID S. JOHNSON, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION
)
v. ) No. 24-2485-KHV
)
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, )
)
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 24, 2024, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed suit against defendant in the District
Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, alleging that (1) in violation of the Kansas Bill of Rights,
defendant required him to perform work outside of his job description, which amounted to
involuntary servitude; and (2) by responding to the Kansas Department of Labor’s request for
information about its termination of plaintiff’s employment, defendant violated K.S.A. § 44-615.
See Civil Action (Doc. #1-1) filed October 21, 2024. On October 21, 2024, defendant removed
the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. See Notice Of Removal (Doc. #1). On
November 1, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to remand, challenging only the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. See Objection To Removal And Request For Return (Doc. #6). On November 14,
2024, the Court overruled plaintiff’s motion to remand. See Order (Doc. #11). On November 27,
2024, plaintiff filed a Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #14) which argued that because plaintiff
was homeless and had never resided in the State of Kansas, the Court lacked diversity jurisdiction.
On December 20, 2024, the Court overruled plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #14)
and sustained Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss (Doc. #7) filed November 11, 2024. See
Memorandum And Order (Doc. #17).
Case 2:24-cv-02485-KHV-TJJ Document 23 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3

-2-
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion To Vacate Judgment For Fraud On
The Court Pursuant To Rule 60(d)(3) (Doc. #19) and Motion For Sanctions For Fraud On The
Court Pursuant To Rule 11 (Doc. #20) both filed October 8, 2025. For reasons stated below, the
Court overrules plaintiff’s motions.
Legal Standards
Plaintiff asserts that defendant committed fraud on the Court and asks the Court to vacate
its judgment pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., and impose sanctions on defendant’s
attorney pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P.
I. Rule 60(d)(3)—Fraud On The Court
Rule 60(d)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., states that Rule 60 does not limit the Court’s power to set
aside a judgment for fraud on the Court. Courts construe such fraud “tightly” because it may
permit a party to overturn a judgment long after it has become final. Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d
542, 553 (10th Cir. 1996). Courts only consider “the most egregious misconduct, such as bribery
of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is
implicated.” United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1342 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Rozier v. Ford
Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978)). Courts will not ordinarily consider “less
egregious misconduct, such as nondisclosure to the court of facts allegedly pertinent to the matter
before it” to rise to the level of fraud on the court. Id. “Intent to defraud is an absolute prerequisite
to a finding of fraud on the court.” Id.
II. Rule 11—Sanctions
Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., requires pleadings to be, to the best of the signer’s knowledge,
well grounded in fact. Coffey v. Healthtrust, Inc., 1 F.3d 1101, 1104 (10th Cir. 1993). To avoid
Rule 11 sanctions, an attorney’s actions must be objectively reasonable, and the attorney’s belief
Case 2:24-cv-02485-KHV-TJJ Document 23 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3

-3-
must be in accord with what a reasonable, competent attorney would believe under the
circumstances. White v. Gen. Motors Corp., 908 F.2d 675, 680 (10th Cir. 1990).
Analysis
Plaintiff argues that by asserting that plaintiff was a resident of the State of Kansas,
defendant committed fraud on the Court. Defendant based its assertion of Kansas citizenship on
a declaration from an employee who had access to defendant’s business records. According to
those records, plaintiff’s last known address, as well as the address on his W-2 Form, was in
Kansas. The record does not reflect that (1) defendant intended to deceive or defraud the Court in
asserting that plaintiff was a Kansas resident or (2) defendant’s attorney’s actions and beliefs as to
plaintiff’s residency were not objectively reasonable. Further, even if plaintiff was not a Kansas
citizen, plaintiff has never asserted that he is a citizen of Delaware or Washington (the states in
which defendant is a citizen), so the Court still had diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion To Vacate Judgment For Fraud
On The Court Pursuant To Rule 60(d)(3) (Doc. #19) and Motion For Sanctions For Fraud On The
Court Pursuant To Rule 11 (Doc. #20) both filed October 8, 2025 are OVERRULED.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2025 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-02485-KHV-TJJ Document 23 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3