Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 129

Sua sponte referral to determine whether pre-filing review is necessary. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on June 12, 2017. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,
Plaintiff,

9
v.
10
11

ARM INC., et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-02943-JCS
Also Filed in Case No. 14-cv-1279-WHA
SUA SPONTE REFERRAL TO
DETERMINE WHETHER PREFILING
REVIEW IS NECESSARY

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff Michael Bruzzone, pro se, has filed a series of lawsuits against Intel Corporation

14

(“Intel”), several of its employees, and other entities including or relating to Defendants ARM Inc.

15

and ARM Holdings plc (collectively, “ARM” or the “ARM Entities”), accusing those entities and

16

individuals of harassing and retaliating against him, concealing crimes, and interfering with

17

federal proceedings, among other claims. In one such action in this district, case number

18

14-cv-1279-WHA (the “1279 Action”), the Honorable William Alsup declared Bruzzone a

19

vexatious litigant and imposed a pre-filing review order, requiring the Clerk to forward any future

20

complaints that Bruzzone filed against Intel or its employees to Judge Alsup to determine whether

21

such complaints are duplicative or frivolous. Bruzzone v. Intel Corp., No. 14-cv-1279-WHA,

22

2014 WL 4090470, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014). Although ARM was a party in that case,

23

Judge Alsup noted that ARM did not join Intel’s motion to declare Bruzzone a vexatious litigant.

24

Id. at *4.

25

The caption of Bruzzone’s present complaint names only the ARM Entities as defendants,

26

but the complaint is replete with allegations of misconduct by Intel (as well as ARM), many of

27

which, to the extent that they are intelligible, appear duplicative of Bruzzone’s claims in the 1279

28

Action. Moreover, Bruzzone’s prayer for relief describes Intel as a defendant (along with ARM)

1

and seeks relief against both Intel and ARM. Accordingly, this action is hereby REFERRED to

2

Judge Alsup to determine whether it is subject to the pre-filing review order.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2017
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2