Gupta v. Wipro Limited et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 76 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 76 Motion to Vacate; terminating 85 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/11/2018. The court will not accept any further filings by Plaintiff in this closed case. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ARVIND GUPTA,

Case No. 5:16-cv-05283-EJD

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

WIPRO LIMITED, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO RE-OPEN CASE AND
FOR RULE 60 RELIEF; DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PREFILING INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 74, 76, 85

Arvind Gupta (“Plaintiff”), who is representing himself, brought this action for alleged

14

wage and hour violations under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) against Wipro

15

Limited, Azim Hashim Premji, and U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez (collectively,

16

“Defendants”). On March 24, 2017, the court ordered this case transferred to the United States

17

District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Transfer Order”).

18

Dkt. 59. The District Court of New Jersey subsequently dismissed Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff filed

19

several appeals, both to the Ninth Circuit and to the Third Circuit. The appeals in the Ninth

20

Circuit have been dismissed; the appeal in the Third Circuit remains pending.

21

Although the case is no longer pending before the undersigned judge, the parties have filed

22

the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case and vacate the Transfer Order

23

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4) or (5) so that Plaintiff may continue

24

litigating his case in this district (Dkt. 76); and (2) Defendants’ Motion For Prefiling Injunction

25

(Dkt. 74). Defendant Secretary of United States Department of Labor (the “Department”) joins in

26

the other Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion, and takes no position on the motion for a pre-

27
28

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-05283-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RE-OPEN CASE AND FOR RULE 60
RELIEF; DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PRE-FILING INJUNCTION
1

1

filing injunction, even though the Department agrees that Plaintiff has become a vexatious and

2

abusive litigant. Dkt. 85. The court finds it appropriate to take the motions under submission for

3

decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

4

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-open Case and for Rule 60 Relief

5

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Transfer Order divests this court of jurisdiction. See

6

Perlman v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., No. 10-51 LRS, 2010 WL 3532681, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 10,

7

2010). “The consensus in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is that once transfer has been

8

granted and the file docketed with the new district, the transferor court loses jurisdiction.” Id.

9

(citing NBS Imaging Systems, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Eastern Dist. of Cal., 841 F.2d
297, 298 (9th Cir. 1998); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); Lou v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1987); and In re Donald, 328 B.R. 192, 197 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

12

2005)). Here, the case was transferred and opened in the District Court of New Jersey on the same

13

day. Dkt. 59, 61. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s

14

motion.

15

Even if this court did have jurisdiction there is no basis to vacate the Transfer Order.

16

Citing Rule 60(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff argues that the transferee court, the District Court of

17

New Jersey, determined it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s “INA” claims, and therefore it was a

18

“mistake” to transfer the case to that jurisdiction. Citing Rule 60(b)(4), Fed, R. Civ. P., Plaintiff

19

similarly argues that because the District Court of New Jersey did not exercise jurisdiction over

20

his INA claims, the Transfer Order is void. The arguments are baseless. The District Court of

21

New Jersey properly exercised jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case and found that claim preclusion

22

barred his claims. See Gupta v. Wipro Ltd. et al., No. 17-1954 FLW, 2017 WL 64022636, at *8

23

(D. New Jersey Dec. 15, 2017).

24

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P., asserting that the

25

Transfer Order is no longer “equitable.” Rule 60(b)(5) permits a court to relieve a party from an

26

order if “applying [the order] prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5).

27
28

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-05283-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RE-OPEN CASE AND FOR RULE 60
RELIEF; DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PRE-FILING INJUNCTION
2

1

Here, the Transfer Order took effect immediately and the transfer has been completed; there will

2

be no prospective application of the Transfer Order. Therefore, Rule 60(b)(5) does not provide a

3

basis for relief.

4

B. Defendants’ Motion For Pre-filing Injunction

5

Defendants seek an order “(a) prohibiting Gupta from filing any further papers against
Wipro and Mr. Premji (or any other related entities or individuals that Gupta may later attempt to

7

sue) in this or any other federal court, and (b) providing that if Gupta should make any further

8

filings, Wipro and Mr. Premji are not required to respond to such filings, absent an explicit

9

directive from the applicable court to do so.” Wipro has a similar motion for pre-filing injunction

10

pending in the District Court of New Jersey, case No. 3:17-cv-01954 (FLW) (DEA), Dkt. No. 85,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

January 18, 2018.

12

Although the case is closed, this court retains the inherent power pursuant to the All Writs

13

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants. See e.g. Bank of New

14

York Mellon v. Brewer, No. C-12-03179 RMW, 2012 WL 3904342, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7,

15

2012) (citing Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007); Weissman

16

v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999); De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144,

17

1147–1148 (9th Cir. 1990) and Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1990)). In making a

18

finding that a party is a vexatious litigant, the court must: “(1) assure that the litigant be given

19

notice and the opportunity to be heard, (2) make an adequate record listing the filings which

20

support the order, and (3) make substantive findings that the party's filings are frivolous or

21

harassing.” Bank of New York Mellon v. Brewer, 2012 WL 3904342, at *3. The resulting order

22

must also be “narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered.” Id. (quoting

23

DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1148).

24

Plaintiff has been involved in extensive litigation in various forums. The litigation in the

25

Northern District of California has been minimal relative to that in the District of New Jersey.

26

Here, the court transferred Plaintiff’s two federal actions and did not issue any orders on

27
28

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-05283-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RE-OPEN CASE AND FOR RULE 60
RELIEF; DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PRE-FILING INJUNCTION
3

1

dispositive motions. The District Court of New Jersey granted Defendants’ and the Department’s

2

motions for summary judgment in the first filed case, and dismissed the second case as barred by

3

the doctrine of claim preclusion. Because the District Court of New Jersey is relatively more

4

familiar with Plaintiff’s litigation history and the substance of his claims, it is preferable to have

5

the Defendants’ motion for pre-filing injunction be decided by the District Court of New Jersey,

6

rather than this court. Defendants’ motion for a pre-filing injunction is DENIED.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Clerk shall close the file. The court will not accept any further filings by Plaintiff in
this closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-05283-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RE-OPEN CASE AND FOR RULE 60
RELIEF; DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PRE-FILING INJUNCTION
4