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)

Download PDF
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

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?