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)

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