Bezalel Grossberger v. Clerk of the Supreme Court, et al.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BEZALEL GROSSBERGER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 21-19959 (GC) (JTQ) v. MEMORANDUM ORDER CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT, et al., Defendants. 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. 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 5th 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. Goagtts Clan GEORGETTE CASTNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE