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).

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