Prasad v. Fridhandler

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Breyer granting 10 Motion to Dismiss. (crblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2018) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/11/2018: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (lsS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ABHIJIT PRASAD, Plaintiff, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 17-cv-06226-CRB ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND v. BRAM FRIDHANDLER, Defendant. 12 13 Dr. Bram Fridhandler moves to dismiss a complaint in which Plaintiff Abhijit 14 Prasad alleges a multitude of claims arising out of child-custody proceedings in state court. 15 The Court lacks jurisdiction over all but two of Mr. Prasad’s claims, and the two claims 16 over which it retains jurisdiction fail on other grounds. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 17 the motion. 18 1. Mr. Prasad brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and 18 U.S.C. 19 § 1962, alleging, inter alia, that the state wrongfully terminated his parental rights, that Dr. 20 Fridhandler lied and obstructed justice during the state-court proceedings, that Dr. 21 Fridhandler committed fraud, that Dr. Fridhandler spoliated evidence, and that judges in 22 the state-court system conspired with other state actors against Mr. Prasad. These claims 23 all complain of harm that was allegedly inflicted during the state child-custody 24 proceedings. Accordingly, they are all barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Noel 25 v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the plaintiff in federal district court 26 complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from 27 the judgment of that court,” the action is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker- 28 Feldman.). 1 2. Mr. Prasad lacks standing to bring a claim under the Lanham Act because he 2 has not alleged (and indeed cannot allege) that he was injured by any deception by Dr. 3 Fridhandler, given that it was the state court, and not Mr. Prasad, that selected Dr. 4 Fridhandler to conduct the child-custody evaluation. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static 5 Control Components, Inc., —U.S.—, 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1395 (2014). 6 3. Mr. Prasad has failed to state a claim under the False Claims Act against Dr. 7 Fridhandler because he has not plausibly alleged that Dr. Fridhandler defrauded the federal 8 government. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1). Dr. Fridhandler’s fees were paid from Mr. 9 Prasad’s treasury, not the United States’. 10 4. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining United States District Court Northern District of California 11 state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). And while Mr. Prasad sprinkles a number of 12 other allegations throughout his complaint, the Court construes the complaint to raise only 13 the allegations specifically mentioned in this order. Mr. Prasad is entitled to liberal 14 construction of his complaint, but by the same token Dr. Fridhandler is entitled to adequate 15 notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 16 Mr. Prasad’s Lanham Act and False Claims Act claims are dismissed WITH 17 PREJUDICE. The remaining claims are dismissed WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 18 and WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RE-FILING IN STATE COURT. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: April 11, 2018 CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge 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?