Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 88

ORDER GRANTING INTEL MOTION TO DECLARE MICHAEL BRUZZONE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT by Judge Alsup re 61 Motion (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/19/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 14-01279 WHA

v.
INTEL CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER GRANTING INTEL’S
MOTION TO DECLARE
MICHAEL BRUZZONE
A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION
The essence of this matter is that our plaintiff has relentlessly pursued defendant

18

manufacturer in a series of lawsuits that have now become extremely far-fetched and abusive.

19

On motion, this order finds that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, at least as to litigation involving

20

defendant and its employees, and will impose pre-filing restrictions.

21

STATEMENT

22

Pro se plaintiff Michael A. Bruzzone describes himself as a “Relator” who became

23

involved in investigating alleged “antitrust and espionage violations occurring domestically in the

24

x86 microprocessor industry.” He allegedly participated in the Federal Trade Commission’s

25

investigation of defendant Intel Corporation in 1998 and 1999 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 23). But he

26

is not a “relator” and the United States is not a party to this civil action.

27
28

In 1999, Mr. Bruzzone filed a pro se complaint against Intel Corporation and others in
Santa Clara County Superior Court. See Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al., No. 1:99-cv779409 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct. Jan. 20, 1999) (Judge Mark Pierce). In 2001, he — via counsel

1

Leshin & Dincel LLP — filed a second amended complaint alleging eighteen claims, including,

2

inter alia, stalking, fraud, intentional interference with prospective business advantage,

3

defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and unfair business

4

practices. The action settled with confidential terms, but it “remains open for the purpose of

5

allowing the Court to enforce the settlement” (Faulkner Decl. ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, Exhs. P, R).

6
7
8
9

In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Bruzzone filed two sealed actions in this district. See Nos.
3:08-cv-04169-WHA, 3:09-cv-00679-WHA. Both were terminated.
In 2010, Mr. Bruzzone was found “guilty of five counts of contempt of court for failure to
obey” an October 2006 permanent injunction entered in the 1999 action. Judge James Emerson
of Santa Clara County Superior Court found that Mr. Bruzzone “willfully disobeyed” the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

permanent injunction by: (1) initiating correspondence in July 2009 with four Intel executives

12

with whom contact and correspondence were prohibited; (2) initiating email correspondence in

13

August 2009 with an Intel executive with whom contact and correspondence were prohibited; (3)

14

attempting to initiate telephone contact in August 2009 with an Intel executive with whom

15

contact and dialogue were prohibited; (4) initiating email correspondence in August 2009 with an

16

Intel executive with whom contact and correspondence were prohibited; and (5) initiating a

17

second email correspondence in August 2009 with an Intel executive with whom contact and

18

correspondence were prohibited (Faulkner Exh. T).

19

In 2011, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Intel Corporation in Santa Clara

20

Superior Court. See Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, No. 1:11-cv-213829 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.

21

Nov. 29, 2011) (Judge Peter Kirwan). The complaint alleged eleven claims, including, inter alia,

22

“Constructed Fraud to Misprison [sic] Federal Reporter,” “Corporate & Attorney Cover Up to

23

Conceal Network Crime,” “Interference w/ Prospective Business Advantage,” and “Retaliation.”

24

Paragraph 32 to the complaint stated (Faulkner Exh. I at ¶ 31–32) (emphasis omitted):

25
26
27
28

31 Intel agent objectives are three fold, first to depress into drug
addiction, second to depress into suicide, third is to target for
assassination stimulating cardiac arrest by agent implemented drug
overdose including bating with drug as set up to record abuse,
suspect stunning with Tazer, rewarding with drugs trapped in the
confines of 11 foot by 11 foot space where handlers implement
Staton DeGrandpre behavioral-pharmacologic conditioning, inject
coming in and out of sedation confined in that space, and
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

transported by car, interrogate in quasi lucent state know by Burkes
reported too and allowed to escape by California Department of
Justice, gassing, suspect electrocution and in one instance just
avoiding what seems to be Anastasia in preparation for plaintiff’s
castration.
32 Mr. Bruzzone becomes strange attractor trapped as mad within
operative’s environmental illness where the crime ring comes back
for more and through successive stings Mr. Bruzzone records and
reports to FBI and Department of Justice in near real time the
activities of a hit squad.

7

The action, according to Mr. Bruzzone, arose “under Department of Labor code, Federal false

8

claims act, State and Federal antitrust and civil law” (id. at ¶ 62). In 2012, he filed a pro se first

9

amended complaint alleging eleven claims, including, inter alia, “Undue Influence, Duress,
Manipulate Unsound Mind,” “Violation of Federal Civil Rights; 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

USC 1986,” “Intent to Destroy Plaintiff Beyond the Bounds of Fair Competition and Fair Play,”

12

“False Light,” and “Gross Negligence.” Judge Peter Kirwan described Mr. Bruzzone’s claims as

13

“unintelligible” and/or “time-barred.” Intel’s demurrer was sustained, although Mr. Bruzzone

14

was permitted to amend the false light claim. Mr. Bruzzone then filed a second amended

15

complaint seeking to “overrule” defendant’s demurrer on “racketeering influenced organization’s

16

decade of obstruction in cartel case matter” and “witness character assassination.” Intel’s

17

demurrer was sustained and Judge Kirwan stated: “Plaintiff’s allegations are so confusing that

18

Intel cannot reasonably respond” (Faulkner Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12–15; Exhs. I, K, L, M, N). The

19

decision was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District, which

20

stated that Mr. Bruzzone’s argument was “brief and perplexing” (Second Supp. RJN, Exh. 1).

21

In October 2012, an order renewing Intel’s permanent injunction was entered by Judge

22

Mark Pierce. The permanent injunction is currently in effect. In the main, Mr. Bruzzone is to

23

stay at least one hundred feet from Intel’s buildings, is to stay at least fifty feet from certain Intel

24

personnel, and cannot commence any communications and/or dialogue concerning Intel with

25

certain Intel personnel. Violations of the permanent injunction are “punishable by one year in

26

jail, a $1,000 fine, or both, or may be punishable as a felony” (Dkt. No. 67-2).

27
28

In 2013, Mr. Bruzzone, via Attorney R. Kenneth Bauer, filed a qui tam complaint. See
Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al., No. 3:13-cv-03729-WHA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013). The
3

1

United States declined to intervene and consented to dismissal, without prejudice as to the United

2

States (Dkt. Nos. 8, 20). In February 2014, Mr. Bruzzone “substitute[d] himself as his own

3

counsel, In Pro Se” (Dkt. No. 25). At the third case management conference, Mr. Bruzzone made

4

the following statements (Dkt. No. 36 at 8–9):

5

THE COURT: When is the last time you ever worked for Intel as
an employee? . . . .

6
MR. BRUZZONE: I was a consultant in ’97, your Honor.
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

THE COURT: That was it? That’s as close as you ever got to
being an employee?
MR. BRUZZONE: They brought me in to provide my assessment
of the anticompetitive activities I had seen in the field in August of
’97, and by May of 1998, I had been invited by Mr. Robert Cook
with the Federal Trade Commission to assist in Docket 9288. That
went on through 2001, all the period of which I was retaliated
against. That actually accelerated and escalated into 2005, 2006.
I’m a survivor of being made a target by people who I consider
were a hit squad, attempts on my life through 2005.

13
*

*

*

14
15
16
17
18
19

MR. BRUZZONE: I believe that there were detectives hired to
assassinate me, your Honor, at that time . . . . The primary strategy
is to create anxiety and depression and force you into various
addictions, drug addictions, which they’d service and promote, and
I believe that they were hoping that I would commit suicide and die
by overdose.
His complaint was dismissed without prejudice and judgment was entered (Dkt. No. 31).
In March 2014, Mr. Bruzzone commenced the instant action by filing a pro se complaint

20

(72 pages), titled “Federal Relator Civil Complaint.” See Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al.,

21

No. 3:14-cv-01279-WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014). The caption referenced Intel Corporation,

22

“Advanced RISC Machines, Inc.,” and various individuals (“Ms. Evangelina Almiranterena, Mr.

23

Steve Lund, Dr. Harley Stock, Dr. Andrew Grove” and “Mr. Ian Drew, Ms. Yvonne Carey, Mr.

24

Eric Shorn, Mr. Simon Segars, Mr. Ehab Youseff”) as “Defendants.” The complaint appeared to

25

identify two claims: “Conspiracy to Defraud on Deceit” and “Gross Negligence” (Compl. ¶¶

26

93–137, 138–152). Nonetheless, sprinkled throughout the complaint were references to numerous

27

federal and state statutes and the Constitution, including, inter alia, the Sherman Act, the Clayton

28

Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985, and sections of the California Civil Code. The complaint
4

1

also made passing references to many criminal statutes, including, inter alia, the “Anti kick back

2

[sic] Act of 1986,” “Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341),” and “RICO [18 U.S.C.] 1961” (Compl. ¶¶ 8,

3

9, 11, 12, 53, 59, 64, 65, 77, 86, 89, 91, 92, 96, 134–37, 145, 150).

4

ARM, Inc. appeared stating that it was “erroneously sued as Advanced RISC Machines,

5

Inc.” and moved to dismiss. Intel moved to dismiss as well, identifying, inter alia, 24 federal

6

laws mentioned in Mr. Bruzzone’s complaint, which it argued was “unintelligible” (Dkt. No. 16).

7

In April 2014, Mr. Bruzzone filed a motion requesting “time to correspond to United

8

States Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama” (Dkt. No. 37). He filed a declaration

9

stating (Dkt. No. 53, Bruzzone Decl. ¶¶ 5, 33):

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

[P]laintiff’s motion [asks] for time to contact Attorney General
Holder, President Obama, Ms. Sara Winslow, Congress, United
States Department of Labor, Office of Special Counsel, United
States Merit Systems Protection Board, General Services
Administration, Federal Trade Commission Investigator Generals of
many agencies to secure administrative relief including attorney
representation as there is nothing standing in the way of my doing
so on so many federal provisions for relief.

14
*

*

*

15
16
17
18
19
20

For all these reasons, Mr. Bruzzone Motion that is time to
correspond to Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder and President
Obama, Congress, Department of Labor, Federal Trade
Commission Investigator General, United States Department of
Justice Investigator General for consideration to provide this federal
civic servant United States Attorney representation, or Office of
Special Counsel representation, or for the United States government
to provide forms of relief available to all employees retaliated
against, whether regular federal employee or invited federal civic
service in technical assistant role, be supported and Mr. Bruzzone’s
motion upheld.

21
He continued to referred to himself as a “Relator.”
22
In May 2014, counsel for Intel filed a letter briefing seeking a discovery stay. Counsel
23
stated that they had conferred with “Mr. Bruzzone through email rather than by telephone or in
24
person for safety reasons.” Appended to Intel’s letter was an email from Mr. Bruzzone to counsel
25
for Intel, dated April 23, 2014, stating (Dkt. No. 44, Exh. C):
26
27
28

Would it not be more efficient to just settle with me on negligence?
Then put me under an NDA, to find out who the bad guys are for
my personal protection, or Subpoena me as a witness where I will
eventually discovery that in the specific proceeding. Or become my
attorney . . . . I am a better witness than a plaintiff. It would be
5

1

more effective for your actions that is not necessarily my action, but
certainly annunciates the causes and reasons for my action.

2
His complaint herein was thereafter stricken. He was given until June 4 to file a first amended
3
complaint (Dkt. No. 51).
4
The June 4 deadline passed. Plaintiff did not file a first amended complaint. There was
5
and is no operative complaint in this action.
6
Mr. Bruzzone then filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned judge. On June 17, Judge
7
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the motion (Dkt. No. 58).
8
The parties were then ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Mr.
9
Bruzzone filed a response refusing to file a first amended complaint. With no operative
10
Bruzzone then filed an “appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit”
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

complaint herein, the action was dismissed and judgment entered (Dkt. Nos. 72, 73). Mr.
11
12
(Dkt. No. 75). He has received permission to proceed in forma pauperis as to that appeal.
13
*

*

*

14
Intel has now filed a motion to declare Mr. Bruzzone a vexatious litigant. Intel proposes
15
the following pre-filing review:
16

21

(1) any complaints or notices of appeal filed by Michael A.
Bruzzone in the Northern District of California against Intel
Corporation or any person employed or formerly employed by or
associated with Intel shall be forwarded by the Clerk to this Court
for pre-filing review; (2) if the Court ascertains that the complaint
or notice of appeal is duplicative or frivolous, it will not be filed
and will be returned to Mr. Bruzzone, but (3) if the Court finds that
the proposed complaint or notice of appeal is not duplicative or
frivolous, it will be given to the Clerk with instructions to file it,
subject to payment of fees.

22

The deadline for Mr. Bruzzone to file an opposition passed and no response was timely filed. A

23

July 2014 order gave plaintiff another chance to file a response. Mr. Bruzzone filed an opposition

24

and Intel filed a reply (Dkt. Nos. 61, 80, 81). (To be clear, only Intel has moved to declare Mr.

25

Bruzzone a vexatious litigant; ARM has not joined the motion.)

17
18
19
20

26

Mr. Bruzzone sent Intel’s in-house counsel and numerous other recipients (including

27

individuals with “usdoj.gov,” “ftc.gov,” and “ec.europa.eu” domain addresses) a lengthy email,

28

dated July 23, 2014. Here are excerpts from Mr. Bruzzone’s email with the subject line “Fm
6

1

Bruzzone Re Arrest Intel Attorneys William Faulkner and Jim McManis NOW” (Dkt. No. 83,

2

Second Supp. Faulkner Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1) (all typographical errors in original):

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Please note my observation that it’s time to arrest IntelcounselMr.
William Faulkner and Mr. James Mcmanis for manipulating my
civil actionsincluding many Judges participating to conceal
minimally a $26,626,000,000cartel theft by Intel executives,
marketing and sales employees.
Mr. Faulkner and Mr. McManis are attorneys,forringmasters,
engaged in cartelcrime ring that have been manipulating Bruzzone
V Intel case matters for192 months,with their Secret service
Affiliate Dr. Harley Stock, includinginfluencing many Superior
Court and State Judges for a very long time.
That is why all three of those aforementioned individual should
bearrested now; for obstruction of justice, conspiracy to conceal
felonyantitrust, criminal RICO and treason against the UnitedStates.
And any who does not follow through on the arrest of Faulkner,
McManisand Stock, will also have committed a treason; 18 USC 3
and 4; cognizant offfelonies and cowards not to act.
Ms. Almirantearena, you fire Messrs. Faulkner and Mcmanis
NOW.Theyare not working for Intel.They are representatives of
organized crime,and as a result,you may be as well.So please show
all of us you arenot by dismissing Messrs. Faulkner and McManis
from the Bruzzone casematter(s).
*

*

*

Arrest Faulkner, McManis, Stock now, and the gang of detectives
includinglaw agents engaged with them in their sting: FBI, Secret
Service, police, manyof their identities are known and their acts
which aremultiple forms offelony criminal violations, targeting me,
well recorded.

24

And ask Governor Jerry Brown, Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Attorney
Tom Greenewith the FTC who they are concealing at the FBI, Intel
Corporate and privatedetectives, and ARM private detectives, and
other law enforcement, along withDr. Stock, engaged in their sting
to disqualify my witness status and to blockdiscovery of those
targeting me in a felony crime.And all thewhilethey systematically
strip me of myability to work, my finances, andindirectlystrip my
family of their propertieson their blacklist andgroup boycott of my
Intel competitive professional services in trade andcommerce.

25

Arrest them now.

21
22
23

26

This order follows full briefing and oral argument.

27
28
7

1

ANALYSIS

2

1.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE.

3

Citing FRE 201(b) and Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803, n.2 (9th Cir. 2002),

4

Intel has made fifteen requests for judicial notice in support of its motion to declare Mr. Bruzzone

5

a vexatious litigant (Dkt. Nos. 63, 65, 78). Intel’s requests as they pertain to Exhibits A, B, D, F,

6

I, K, L, M, P, Q, R, S, and T to the Declaration of William Faulkner, Exhibit 1 to the

7

Supplemental Declaration of William Faulkner, and Exhibit 1 to the Second Supplemental

8

Declaration of William Faulkner are GRANTED. The remainder of the requests, to the extent not

9

relied upon in this order, are DENIED AS MOOT.
2.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

MOTION TO DECLARE MR. BRUZZONE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

Our court of appeals has recognized the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the

12

activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under appropriate

13

circumstances. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). Our court of appeals

14

has stated:

15
16
17
18

When district courts seek to impose pre-filing restrictions, they
must: (1) give litigants notice and an opportunity to oppose the
order before it is entered; (2) compile an adequate record for
appellate review, including a listing of all the cases and motions
that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order
was needed; (3) make substantive findings of frivolousness or
harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as to closely fit the
specific vice encountered.

19
Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, No. 11-57231, 2014 WL 3805579, at *2 (9th Cir.
20
Aug. 4, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted; citing De Long). Although pre-filing review
21
orders are an “extreme remedy that should rarely be used,” “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial
22
process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that
23
properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” Molski v. Evergreen
24
Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing De Long).
25
A.

Notice and Opportunity to be Heard.

26
The first procedural requirement is satisfied. Mr. Bruzzone has had notice and an
27
opportunity to be heard. He was promptly served with Intel’s motion and reminded of the
28
8

1

August 14 hearing date in a July order (Dkt. Nos. 68, 79, 80). Mr. Bruzzone filed an opposition

2

to the motion and noted that the “time of Intel[’s] motion . . . is August 14, 2014” (Opp. 4). On

3

the noticed hearing date, the matter was called. Defense Attorney James McManis was present

4

but Mr. Bruzzone did not appear. Mr. Bruzzone has had notice and an opportunity to be heard.

5

B.

Adequate Record.

6

“An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases and motions that

7

led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed,” although the court

8

need not list every case filed by the litigant. Molski, 500 F.3d at 1059 (internal quotation marks

9

omitted). This order has already summarized the actions, orders, and briefs relevant to the motion
herein. To repeat, Mr. Bruzzone has filed at least two state actions and four federal actions

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(including this one) against Intel Corporation based on many of the same underlying facts.

12

•

Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al., No. 99-779409 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct. 1999);

13

•

No. 08-04169 (N.D. Cal. 2008);

14

•

No. 09-00679 (N.D. Cal. 2009);

15

•

Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, No. 11-213829 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct. 2011);

16

•

Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al., No. 13-03729 (N.D. Cal. 2013);

17

•

Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al., No. 14-01279 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (this action).

18

In 2010, Mr. Bruzzone was found “guilty of five counts of contempt of court for failure to

19

obey” a court order. The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District has found

20

Mr. Bruzzone’s arguments “brief and perplexing” and a Superior Court judge has found Mr.

21

Bruzzone’s claims “confusing” and “unintelligible.” In his qui tam action, the government

22

incurred time and expense declining to intervene, consenting to dismissal, and appearing at

23

hearings. In the instant action (to which the government is not a party), Mr. Bruzzone has filed a

24

motion to contact senior government officials, including United States Attorney General Eric

25

Holder and President Barack Obama, along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Winslow, the

26

Department of Justice, Congress, and various agencies. He has filed a motion to disqualify the

27

undersigned judge (denied by Judge Gonzalez Rogers), and Intel has filed a motion to declare him

28

a vexatious litigant. In addition, some of the emails Mr. Bruzzone has sent are distressing. Most
9

1

recently, Mr. Bruzzone has asked members of the United States Department of Justice to “Arrest

2

Intel Attorneys William Faulkner and Jim McManis” of the firm McManis Faulkner and directly

3

emailed Intel’s in-house counsel asking that they “fire Messrs. Faulkner and Mcmanis.” This

4

order finds Mr. Bruzzone’s email misguided and inappropriate.

5

Accordingly, there is an adequate record to review and this requirement is satisfied.

6

C.

Substantive Findings of Frivolousness and/or Harassment.

7

Before entering a pre-filing order, the district court must make substantive findings as to

8

the frivolous and/or harassing nature of the litigant’s actions. Our court of appeals has stated that

9

“[t]o determine whether the litigation is frivolous, district courts must look at both the number
and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims.”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Ringgold-Lockhart, 2014 WL 3805579, at *4 (quotation marks omitted). Generally, this involves

12

a finding that the number of claims made was inordinate and those claims were patently without

13

merit. Our court of appeals has also stated that “the district court may make an alternative finding

14

that the litigant’s filings show a pattern of harassment,” meaning several similar types of actions

15

constituting an “intent to harass the defendant or the court.” Id. at *4–5. Our court of appeals has

16

stated that the Second Circuit’s five-factor standard “provides a helpful framework” for this

17

determination:

18
19
20
21
22

(1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it
entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the
litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant
have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether
the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has
caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an
unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5)
whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and
other parties.

23

Molski, 500 F.3d at 1058 (quoting Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986)).

24

“Finally, courts should consider whether other, less restrictive options, are adequate to protect the

25

court and parties.” Ringgold-Lockhart, 2014 WL 3805579, at *5.

26

This order makes a substantive finding of harassment in light of Mr. Bruzzone’s actions.

27

This order finds that Mr. Bruzzone has a personal vendetta against Intel as evidenced by the six

28

actions he has filed in state and federal court. All of these actions, the earliest one dating back to
10

1

1999, have related to Mr. Bruzzone’s allegation that Intel has interfered with his “efforts to obtain

2

and sustain employment” (Faulkner Exh. P). This is allegedly in “retaliation” for Mr. Bruzzone’s

3

conduct in 1998 and 1999.

4

None of Mr. Bruzzone’s actions in federal and state court has survived the pleading

5

stage. The allegations raised in his dismissed Santa Clara Superior Court action (affirmed by the

6

California Court of Appeal) in many ways mirrored the actions he has brought in federal court —

7

which defendants, the government, and the court have spent significant time and expense sifting

8

through. His allegations have been characterized as “confusing” and “unintelligible.” Mr.

9

Bruzzone’s representations are bizarre and hard to believe.
Nonetheless, Mr. Bruzzone was given a fair opportunity to file a proper first amended

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

complaint, but he never did herein. He instead filed a motion to disqualify, which was found to

12

lack any evidence of bias or facts that could form a legitimate basis upon which to disqualify.

13

Mr. Bruzzone has misdirected government resources by filing unsuccessful “qui tam” actions and

14

has sought “time to correspond” with senior government officials, including the President of the

15

United States. Despite a permanent injunction prohibiting him from corresponding with Intel

16

personnel, he violated that order and was found guilty of five counts of contempt. As recently as

17

last month, Mr. Bruzzone sent an email to Intel’s in-house counsel and the Department of Justice

18

calling for the arrest of counsel from the firm of McManis Faulkner (Second Supp. Faulkner

19

Decl. ¶ 2). On several occasions, Mr. Bruzzone has proceeded pro se and represented that he

20

lacks resources. Nonetheless, he continues to file lengthy complaints, including a 72-page

21

complaint referencing more than 24 federal statutes. His claims in this action and others are

22

numerous and inordinate, seeming to arise from a bizarre belief that Intel has allegedly retaliated

23

against him by trying to assassinate him by suicide. He accuses Intel of crimes and seeks to

24

involve vast swaths of government resources investigating his claims, even though the United

25

States declined to intervene in his prior qui tam action.

26

This order finds that Mr. Bruzzone’s claims are frivolous, harassing, and brought with no

27

objective good faith expectation of prevailing. His approach is to repeatedly sue Intel using

28

complaints referencing an uncalled-for number of statutes, which forces Intel to incur needless
11

1

expense defending itself in court. This is a flagrant abuse of the judicial process and has enabled

2

Mr. Bruzzone to consume a considerable amount of time and resources from Intel, other

3

defendants, the government, Superior Court judges, the California Court of Appeal, and federal

4

judges. Accordingly, this order makes a substantive finding of harassment in light of Mr.

5

Bruzzone’s actions.

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

*

*

*

The question that remains is whether less drastic sanctions would accomplish the same
ends. In particular, our court of appeals has pointed to sanctions under FRCP 11, including:
nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if
imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order
directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable
attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the
violation.
Ringgold-Lockhart, 2014 WL 3805579, at *5.
This order finds that monetary sanctions would have little deterrent effect on Mr.

14

Bruzzone’s harassing actions. In this action, he has filed an application to proceed in forma

15

pauperis, representing under penalty of perjury that he was not presently employed, he was

16

unmarried, and he had “6800 checking 300 savings.” In the past, he has also represented to the

17

undersigned judge that he was not in a financial position to fund his actions without government

18

intervention. It may be difficult to collect a penalty or order of attorney’s fees and/or expenses

19

from pro se Mr. Bruzzone.

20

This order also finds that nonmonetary directives would not have the weight necessary to

21

deter Mr. Bruzzone from continuing to harass Intel and from needlessly draining resources from

22

the government. Mr. Bruzzone is currently subject to a permanent injunction prohibiting him

23

from commencing communications with and approaching certain Intel personnel. Currently, this

24

permanent injunction expires in October 2015, but may be renewed. Nevertheless, Mr. Bruzzone

25

violated his permanent injunction in 2010 and most recently has asked Intel’s in-house counsel to

26

fire attorneys from the law firm of McManis Faulkner.

27
28
12

1

Having considered alternative sanctions, this order finds that pre-filing review is

2

warranted to tamp down on Mr. Bruzzone’s harassing actions and repetitive filing of frivolous

3

claims.

4

D.

5

Narrowly Tailored Order.

This order finds a narrowly tailored pre-filing review order is warranted, at least as to any

6

further litigation against Intel. Mr. Bruzzone is hereby DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

7

This is not a bar on bringing lawsuits, but a pre-filing review. Plaintiff must submit to pre-filing

8

review any pro se complaint filed in the Northern District of California against Intel Corporation,

9

its current employees, its former employees, Evangelina Almirantearena, Steve Lund, Harley
Stock, and/or Andrew Grove. The Clerk shall then forward any complaints submitted by plaintiff

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

to the undersigned for pre-filing review. If the Court ascertains that the complaint is duplicative

12

or frivolous, it will not be filed and will be returned to plaintiff. If the Court finds that the

13

proposed pleading is not duplicative or frivolous, it will be given to the Clerk with instructions to

14

file it.

15
16

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion to declare plaintiff Michael Bruzzone a

17

vexatious litigant is GRANTED as to litigation against Intel and/or its current or former employees.

18

It is hereby ordered that plaintiff may not file, nor the Clerk accept for filing, any further pro se

19

complaints from plaintiff against Intel, Evangelina Almirantearena, Steve Lund, Harley Stock,

20

Andrew Grove, and/or any current or former employees of Intel, without obtaining prior leave

21

from the Court. The Clerk shall forward any complaints submitted by plaintiff to the undersigned

22

judge for pre-filing review.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: August 19, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
13