Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 72

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 28, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, et al., ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Defendants. / 12 13 No. C 14-01279 WHA In May 2014, pro se Michael Bruzzone’s complaint was stricken. He was given until 14 June 4 to file a first amended complaint “or this action will be dismissed” (Dkt. No. 51). 15 That deadline has passed and plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint. 16 Accordingly, there is no operative complaint in this action. 17 18 19 Michael Bruzzone then filed a motion to disqualify, which was denied by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (Dkt. Nos. 56, 58). In June 2014, the parties were ordered to show cause why this action should not be 20 dismissed (Dkt. No. 59). Defendants Intel Corporation and ARM, Inc. stated no objection to 21 dismissal. Intel, however, has filed a motion to declare Michael Bruzzone a vexatious litigant, 22 noticed for a hearing on August 14 (Dkt. No. 61). Michael Bruzzone filed a response to the 23 order to show cause refusing to file a first amended complaint. Since there is no operative 24 complaint, this action cannot proceed. Judgment shall be entered. Intel’s motion will be 25 considered in due course. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: June 28, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?