United States of America v. Takata Corporation

Filing 34

ORDER denying Oleg Yarin's Motions 27 , 28 , 29 , 33 and ENJOINING Oleg Yarin from filing further motions. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 17-mc-50300
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

v.
TAKATA CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/

ORDER DENYING OLEG YARIN’S MOTIONS (Doc. 27, 28, 29, 33)
AND ENJOINING OLEG YARIN FROM FILING FURTHER MOTIONS
On March 16, 2017, pro se petitioner Oleg Yarin filed a motion for
“crime victim status” seeking to be recognized as an interested party in a
criminal case against Takata Corporation (“Takata”). (Doc. 8). In the
criminal case, Takata pleaded guilty to wire fraud arising out of its sale of
faulty airbag inflators, and agreed to make restitution to automobile
manufacturers who were victims of Takata’s wire fraud scheme, and to pay
restitution to individuals who suffered personal injury caused by the
malfunction of a Takata airbag inflator. This court denied Yarin’s motion for
crime victim status because he does not allege that he suffered any

-1-

personal injury as a result of a defective Takata airbag inflator. (Doc. 11).
Following that order, Yarin filed two motions for reconsideration (Doc. 12
and 19) which this court denied as frivolous. (Doc. 13 and 20). Yarin then
filed a motion for the court to clarify its prior order (Doc. 25) which this court
also denied. (Doc. 26). Yarin then filed a third motion for reconsideration
(Doc. 27), a motion for an order requiring registration of certain Takata
airbag inflators as destructive devices (Doc. 28), a motion for acceptance
as true important safety recall notice (Doc. 29), and a motion requesting
that this court rule on the previously filed motions. (Doc. 33). None of
these motions are permitted under the Local Rules or the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. All of the motions are frivolous and lack any merit.
Accordingly, Yarin’s motions (Doc. 27, 28, 29, and 33) hereby are
DENIED as frivolous.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651, Yarin is ENJOINED from filing any other motions in this
criminal case without obtaining leave of court. To obtain leave, Yarin must
initially comply with all of the following requirements:
1.

He must file a “Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave

to File” with any proposed motion or request; and

-2-

2.

As an exhibit to that motion, he must attach a declaration

prepared pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a sworn affidavit certifying that
the document he wishes to present is a new issue which has never been
raised by him in court.
Failure to comply with these terms may itself be grounds for denying
any motion for leave to file. Compliance with these terms does not, of
itself, constitute grounds for granting leave to file.
Furthermore, this court certifies that any appeal from this decision
would be frivolous, not in good faith and, therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), may not be taken in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2018
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 18, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Oleg Yarin, 7360 Ulmerton Road, Apt. 3C,
Largo, FL 33771.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-