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)

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