Royall v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

1
3:25-cv-2232-RSH-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
GABRIEL ADAM ROYALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
COMPANY,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-2232-RSH-DEB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[ECF Nos. 15, 17]
On October 3, 2025, the Court dismissed this lawsuit for failure to state a claim, and
entered judgment for Defendant. ECF Nos. 12, 13. This is one of five related lawsuits that
Plaintiff brought against Defendant in California Superior Court, that Defendant removed
to this Court, and that this Court has since dismissed. See Case Nos. 25-cv-1994, 25-cv-
2379, 25-cv-2455, and 25-cv-2577.
Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of dismissal pursuant to Rule 59(e), based
on a “manifest error of fact.” ECF No. 15 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that the Court
misapprehended the “core of the claims,” in that the Complaint “was not a dispute over the
legitimacy of ‘debt collection correspondence’ but rather a challenge to the Defendant’s
alleged abuse of process by employing simulated legal documents.” Id. Plaintiff explains
that his Complaint is based on Defendant allegedly sending him “unfiled, unsanctioned
Case 3:25-cv-02232-RSH-DEB Document 18 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-2232-RSH-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
mailings formatted to resemble official court documents but sent before any docket entry
or stamp existed.” Id. Plaintiff further explains that although he is a registered e-filer, and
thus receives electronic service of documents, Defendant sent him “unsanctioned, physical
mailings—sent outside the Court’s proper service channels” as “an attempt to create the
false appearance of judicial urgency and circumvent authorized process.” Id. at 3.
The Court understands Plaintiff’s factual allegations. The dismissal order recited his
allegations:
On August 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se in California
Superior Court for the County of San Diego. ECF No. 1-2 at 4–20
(“Compl.”). The Complaint alleges as follows.
Plaintiff has been a customer of Defendant for over 25 years. Id. ¶ 6.
Plaintiff took out a “small loan (between $5,000 and $10,000),” and
was purportedly late in making payments on the loan. Id. ¶ 7. Defendant
“initiated a campaign of aggressive demand for payment,” that included
sending letters threatening legal action, making numerous phone calls,
and pressing Defendant for payment during a lunch meeting. Id. ¶¶ 7–
8. 	“On 	or 	about 	August 	5, 	2024, 	Plaintiff 	received 	two 	large,
unsolicited, and improperly delivered mailings from Defendant’s legal
team or agents acting on its behalf.” Id. ¶ 9. The mailings consisted of
two sets of printed documents. Id. ¶ 20.
The Complaint states that Plaintiff had never consented to receive legal
documents by mail, and indeed had previously registered for electronic
court notifications. Id. ¶¶ 10– 11. “The delivered materials were heavy,
duplicative, and unmarked, creating the false appearance of official
urgency but lacking any court-issued stamp or tracing.” Id. ¶ 12.
Plaintiff 	took 	“small 	protective 	measures, 	including 	isolating 	the
envelopes, bleaching and sanitizing the mailbox area, and washing his
face and hands.” Id. ¶ 13. The event caused Plaintiff mental and
emotional distress. Id. ¶ 15. “Upon investigation, Plaintiff was unable
to confirm if the documents were ever filed with the court, and as of
this filing, has received no official notice or confirmation from the court
regarding said documents.” Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff has difficulty reviewing
printed legal materials as opposed to digital content. Id. ¶¶ 22–23.
ECF No. 12 at 1–2.
Case 3:25-cv-02232-RSH-DEB Document 18 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-2232-RSH-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
Plaintiff’s allegations, even as explicated in his motion for reconsideration, fail to
state a claim, for the same reasons set forth in the Court’s dismissal order. Id. at 4–5.
Whether or not the mailings that Plaintiff received were or were not ultimately filed with a
court, or whether they should have been served electronically instead of physically mailed,
the Complaint still fails to plead any cogent claim for relief. Plaintiff’s contention that
Defendant mailed him non-file-stamped documents that were formatted for filing with the
court does not, for example, amount to abuse of process. See, e.g., Younger v. Solomon, 38
Cal. App. 3d 289, 297 (Ct. App. 1974) (“The gist of the tort is the misuse of the power of
the court: It is an act done under the authority of the court for the purpose of perpetrating
an injustice, i.e., a perversion of the judicial process to the accomplishment of an improper
purpose.”). Plaintiff does not identify any manifest error of fact made by the Court in the
dismissal order, and the Court declines to reconsider that order. Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration [ECF No. 15] is DENIED.
Plaintiff has also moved for leave to electronically file documents in this case. The
Court entered judgment in this case on October 3, 2025, and in this order rules on Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s request for leave to electronically file documents
[ECF No. 17] is therefore DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2026 	____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02232-RSH-DEB Document 18 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3