Haque v. Ernst and Young, LLP et al

Filing 3

ORDER RE PREFILING REVIEW re 2 Received Document filed by Serajul Haque, 1 Received Document filed by Serajul Haque. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/13/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SERAJUL HAQUE, 9 Plaintiff, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-11-80294 MISC EMC ERNST AND YOUNG, LLP, et al., 12 ORDER RE PREFILING REVIEW Defendants. ___________________________________/ 13 14 15 Plaintiff Serajul Haque has previously been declared a vexatious litigant. See Haque v. Toys 16 R Us, No. C-04-0231 MHP (Docket Nos. 2, 7) (order to show cause and order dismissing 17 approximately 20 complaints filed by plaintiff and declaring him a vexatious litigant). Pursuant to 18 the order of Judge Patel, Mr. Haque is barred from filing any complaint, petition, or other pleading 19 attempting to initiate an action relating to employment or employment-related matters unless so 20 permitted.1 Currently pending before the Court is an employment discrimination complaint that Mr. 21 Haque filed on December 1, 2011. See Docket No. 1 (complaint). 22 Having reviewed the complaint, the Court hereby finds that it is subject to prefiling review 23 and further DENIES the filing. Mr. Haque essentially complains of conduct by two companies 24 which he previously challenged in two other cases.2 Judge Patel dismissed those complaints on the 25 26 27 28 1 Judge Patel’s order indicates that she would be the one to conduct the prefiling review. However, now that Judge Patel has taken senior status, the undersigned shall conduct the prefiling review. 2 See Haque v. Ernst & Young LLP, No. C-03-5257 MHP; Haque v. KPMG, No. C-04-2700. 1 merits, see Haque v. Toys R Us, No. C-04-0231 MHP (Docket No. 2) (Order at 1), (stating that all of 2 complaints filed by plaintiff “involve merely barebones assertions that he wasn’t hired, or in some 3 cases was not interviewed or did not receive a response to his inquiry seeking employment[;] 4 [p]laintiff then jumps to the conclusion that the reason for his failure to be hired, interviewed or 5 responded to must be because of discrimination based upon the myriad of grounds he proffers”), and 6 thus res judicata bars Mr. Haque from bringing this suit. See generally 18-131 Moore’s Fed. Prac. – 7 Civ. § 131.30[3][a] (stating that, “[i]n general, a judgment will be considered on the merits if it is 8 rendered upon consideration of the legal claim, as distinguished from consideration of an objection 9 to subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, service of process, venue, or any other ground that does not go to the legal or factual sufficiency of the claim to relief”). To the extent Mr. Haque’s 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 complaint is based on new conduct by Defendants (i.e., conduct that took place post-dismissal of the 12 prior complaints), res judicata is not a bar; however, the conduct at issue is substantially similar to 13 that involved in the prior cases and, like Judge Patel, the Court finds the factual allegations 14 insufficient to state a claim for relief. To the extent Mr. Haque believes simply “report[ing] for 15 duty” is enough of a reason for a company to hire him, Compl. ¶ 6, the Court rejects that argument 16 as a matter of law. 17 18 19 Accordingly, the Court denies the filing by Mr. Haque. In light of this ruling, Mr. Haque’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: December 13, 2011 22 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 SERAJUL HAQUE, 4 Case Number: CV11-80294 EMC Plaintiff, 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. 6 ERNST AND YOUNG LLP et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on December 13, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Serajul Haque 1001 South Main Street Apt. D-122 Milpitas, CA 95035 Dated: December 13, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Betty Lee, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?