GROSSBERGER v. CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT et al

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BEZALEL GROSSBERGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 21-19959 (GC) (JTQ)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
CASTNER, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Bezalel Grossberger’s Motion to
Remand. (ECF No. 123.) The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s submission and decides
the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Local Civil
Rule 78.1(b); and
WHEREAS on November 25, 2025, the Court dismissed all of Grossberger’s claims. (See
ECF No. 122 (dismissing claims against the Clerk of the New Jersey Superior Court and the Clerk
of the New Jersey Supreme Court with prejudice and dismissing claims against the Monmouth
County Clerk without prejudice)); and
WHEREAS Grossberger asserts that he “is suffering from the actions of the numerous
defendants named throughout the case and is seeking to return to State Court where he originally
sued.” (ECF No. 123 at 7); and
WHEREAS a motion to remand is moot if no active claims remain in a case. See, e.g.,
Fiorillo v. Lana, 186 F. Supp. 3d 17, 21 (D. Mass. 2016) (“Because no claims remain in this
lawsuit, [p]laintiff’s motion to remand or dismiss . . . is denied as moot.”); Yourke v. City & Cnty.
Case 3:21-cv-19959-GC-JTQ Document 125 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID:
<pageID>

2
of San Francisco, Civ. No. 03-03105, 2010 WL 3701789, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2010), aff’d,
473 F. App’x 725 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]here are no claims to remand, and [p]laintiff’s [m]otion to
[d]ismiss & [r]emand . . . is [denied] as moot.”); Uptergrove v. United States, Civ. No. 08-0303,
2008 WL 2915074, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2008) (“[The p]laintiff’s motion to remand is currently
moot because there is nothing to remand.”); and
WHEREAS the Court finds that Grossberger’s Motion to Remand is moot because no
claims remain; and for other good cause shown;
IT IS on this ___ day of January, 2026 ORDERED as follows:
1. 	The Clerk’s Office is directed to REOPEN this case for purposes of the Court
considering Grossberger’s Motion to Remand.
2. 	Grossberger’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 123) is DENIED as moot.
3. 	The Court will take no action with respect to any future filings by Grossberger in
this case. See Grossberger v. Ruane, 535 F. App’x 84, 86 (3d Cir. 2013) (“It is clear
that Grossberger is unhappy with the District Court’s decision to dismiss his case,
and apparently he has made it his goal to change the Court’s mind. 	But in the
process, he has ‘established a pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation.’”).
4. 	The Clerk’s Office is directed to TERMINATE the Motion pending at ECF No.
123 and to CLOSE this case.
______________________________
G EORGETTE CASTNER
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5th
Case 3:21-cv-19959-GC-JTQ Document 125 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID:
<pageID>