Arunachalam v. The United States et al

Filing 100

ORDER denying 96 Motion to Amend; finding as moot 99 Administrative Motion. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/23/2018. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Case No. 5:16-cv-06591-EJD

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT

9
v.
10
11

THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 96

12
13

I. INTRODUCTION

14
15

Plaintiff Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to file an amended

16

complaint naming DOES 1-6 and adding new claims. The motion is scheduled for hearing on

17

February 8, 2018. Defendants United States of America, United States District Court for the

18

District of Delaware, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States Patent

19

and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”), and United States District

20

Court for the Northern District of California (collectively “Defendants”) oppose the motion and

21

request that the case be dismissed without leave to amend. The motion is fully briefed. The

22

Court finds it appropriate to take the motion under submission for decision without oral argument

23

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
II. BACKGROUND

24
25

Plaintiff’s 230-page original complaint is captioned “Independent Action Under FRCP

26

R60(b)(6), 60(d) For Fraud Upon the Court, Where Compelling Circumstances Exist.” Plaintiff

27

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-06591-EJD

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
1

1

alleged that she is the inventor of eleven patents relating to real-time Web transactions from Web

2

applications; that she founded a company called Pi-Net; and that she lost her business due to

3

Defendants’ alleged misconduct. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made certain judicial rulings

4

against her interests at a time when she suffered from medical distress and was deprived of her

5

constitutional right to be heard. She also alleged that Defendants failed to apply the correct legal

6

standards regarding patent validity; failed to disqualify a judge for judicial bias and conflicts of

7

interest; and failed to allow her to substitute in as Plaintiff in a case pending in Delaware.

8

Plaintiff’s original complaint also included allegations of malfeasance by John Podesta, Hillary

9

Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Clinton Foundation. Plaintiff’s complaint also referred to
discrimination, elder abuse, retaliation, cruel and unusual punishment, RICO claims, obstruction

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of justice, treason, civil rights violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and many

12

other issues. In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff asked the Court to void the judgments issued in

13

other cases in the Northern District of California, the District Court for the District of Delaware,

14

the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Patent Trial and Appeals Board

15

(“PTAB”). The cases discussed in the original complaint included, but were not limited to,

16

District of Delaware cases 1:12-cv-282-SLR/RGA and 1:14-cv-490-RGA, Northern District of

17

California cases 3:15-cv-00023-EDL, and Federal Circuit cases 14-1495, 15-1424, 15-1433, 15-

18

1429, 15-1869 and 15-1831. Four of the 2015 Federal Circuit cases are appeals of Patent Trial

19

and Appeal Board decisions.

20

On August 30, 2017, the Court dismissed the original complaint because it did not set forth

21

a short and plain statement of the claims, nor set forth a basis for relief under Rule 60,

22

Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court also held that the doctrine of judicial immunity applied. The Court

23

granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 72.

24

In September of 2017, Plaintiff filed a 290-page First Amended Complaint. After

25

reviewing the entirety of the First Amended Complaint, the Court issued an Order Striking

26

Plaintiff’s Pleading because the First Amended Complaint (1) purported to add new parties and

27

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-06591-EJD

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
2

1

new claims without leave of the Court, (2) failed to comply with Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P., and (3)

2

alleged conduct and claims protected by judicial immunity and over which the Court lacked

3

jurisdiction.
Plaintiff now seeks leave to add new parties and new claims. The new defendants that

4
5

Plaintiff seeks to add in this action are judges, including the undersigned judge1, and an Assistant

6

U.S. Attorney. In the first cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that she entered into a contract with the

7

USPTO, and that the USPTO/PTAB breached the contract by failing to uphold patent prosecution

8

history estoppel, by conducting re-examinations of Plaintiff’s patents, and by failing to abide by

9

the Supreme Court’s decision in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810). In the second cause of
action, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the USPTO fraudulently induced her to give her

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

invention to the USPTO in return for patent protection, and that the USPTO concealed that it

12

would “illegally and unconstitutionally re-examine” her patents. Dkt. 96-1, p. 204. In the third

13

cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s contract with the

14

USPTO. Plaintiff also asserts claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress;

15

“negligence/professional misconduct”; “breach of contract, breach of public trust”; treason;

16

conspiracy; deprivation of civil rights; and “Violations of the Constitution and Oaths of Office and

17

Breach of Public Trust.” Plaintiff also seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. In the prayer

18

for relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court void all of Defendants’ Orders against Plaintiff and

19

award $250 billion in damages per Defendant.
III. STANDARDS

20

Leave to amend under Rule 15 is generally granted with liberality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)

21
22

(“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”); Morongo Band of Mission

23

Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990). Leave need not be granted, however, where

24
1

26

“A judge is not disqualified by a litigant’s suit or threatened suit against him.” U.S. v. Studley,
783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986); see also U.S. v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing
Studley).

27

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-06591-EJD

25

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
3

1

the amendment of the complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad

2

faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,

3

182 (1962); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994).
IV. DISCUSSION

4
5

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint does not cure any of the defects noted in the

6

Court’s August 30, 2017 Order Denying Motion for Recusal; Granting Defendants’ Motion to

7

Dismiss With Leave to Amend. As a preliminary matter, the proposed amended complaint does

8

not contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,”

9

as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, Plaintiff’s proposed
amended complaint is a 240-page document (plus attachments) filled with legal terms and case

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

citations that is needlessly long, highly repetitious, and confusing. Failure to comply with Rule 8

12

alone warrants dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996).

13

The proposed amended complaint is also defective to the extent Plaintiff, once again, seeks

14

relief pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. In the prayer for relief Plaintiff requests that the Court

15

void all of Defendants’ Orders against Plaintiff. A party cannot use a Rule 60 independent action

16

“as a vehicle for relitigation of issues.” Brown v. S.E.C., 644 Fed.Appx. 957, 959 (11th Cir. 2016)

17

(quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir. 1985)).

18

Plaintiff’s lawsuit is also barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Jones v. U.S.

19

Supreme Court, No. 10-2750 SI, 2010 WL 2975790 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (judicial immunity bars

20

claims that are based upon allegations concerning judicial officer’s decision-making while

21

presiding over cases and acts performed in judicial capacity). Judicial immunity applies even

22

where “the action [the judge] took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his

23

authority; rather he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all

24

jurisdiction.’” Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir.

25

1987) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)). Here, there has been no

26

showing that the judicial officer defendants acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

27

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-06591-EJD

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
4

1

The proposed amended complaint is also barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

2

See Balser v. Dep’t of Justice, 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). The United States is immune

3

from suit unless it has waived its immunity. Id. “In sovereign immunity analysis, any lawsuit

4

against an agency of the United States or against an officer of the United States in his or her

5

official capacity is considered an action against the United States.” Id. There has been no

6

showing in this case that the United States has waived sovereign immunity.

7
8
9

In addition, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s challenges to the PTAB decisions.
Title 35 U.S.C. §§319 and 329 set forth the proper procedures for appealing a PTAB decision.
Finally, the U.S. Attorney named in the proposed amended complaint is entitled to
absolute immunity because the U.S. Attorney’s actions were taken in her official capacity in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

connection with providing a defense in the judicial proceedings. Fry v. Melarango, 939 F.2d 832,

12

836 (9th Cir. 1991).
V. CONCLUSION

13
14

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file her proposed amended complaint (Dkt. No. 96-1) is

15

DENIED. Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8,

16

Fed.R.Civ.P., and does not include new claims and parties, no later than February 12, 2018.

17

Failure to file and serve an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in

18

dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Rules 8 and 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-06591-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT
5