Arunachalam v. The United States et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 71 Motion to Disqualify Judge; granting 29 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila 08/30/2017(ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2017)

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,
9

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECUSAL; GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
10
11

THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 71

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

I. INTRODUCTION

14
15

Pending before the Court are two separate motions. First, Plaintiff Dr. Lakshmi

16

Arunachalam (“Plaintiff”) seeks recusal of the undersigned judge. Although the basis for

17

Plaintiff’s motion is not entirely clear, it appears to be rulings by the undersigned that Plaintiff

18

perceives as unfavorable. The motion is denied. Judicial rulings are not a proper ground for

19

recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

20

Second, Defendants United States of America, United States District Court for the District

21

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

22

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

23

the Northern District of California (collectively “Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint.

24

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend.
II. BACKGROUND

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s 230-page complaint is captioned “Independent Action Under FRCP R60(b)(6),

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-06591-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
1

1

60(d) For Fraud Upon the Court, Where Compelling Circumstances Exist.” Plaintiff alleges that

2

she is the inventor of eleven patents relating to real-time Web transactions from Web applications;

3

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

4

alleged misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made certain judicial rulings against her

5

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

6

right to be heard. She also alleges that Defendants failed to apply the correct legal standards

7

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

8

failed to allow her to substitute in as Plaintiff in a case pending in Delaware. Plaintiff’s complaint

9

also includes allegations of malfeasance by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the
Clinton Foundation. Plaintiff’s complaint also refers to discrimination, elder abuse, retaliation,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

cruel and unusual punishment, RICO claims, obstruction of justice, treason, civil rights violations,

12

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and many other issues.

13
14
15
16
17
18

The alleged violation of Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P., is predicated on the following:
Defendants committed fraud upon the court, where a unique
combination of compelling circumstances exists and have existed
and become a pattern, which has caused financial and medical injury
to Plaintiff of the order of magnitude of trillions of dollars. This has
been the biggest heist of the century, the theft of Plaintiff’s patented
Web applications displayed on a Web browser, such as Web
banking, social networking and other Web applications in horizontal
and vertical markets.

19

Complaint, p. 190. In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to void the judgments issued in

20

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

21

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

22

Board. In short, Plaintiff “seeks help from this court in any manner that reasonably aids the

23

administration of justice.” Complaint, p. 191. Although the prayer for relief does not specify all

24

of the cases in which Plaintiff believes orders or judgment should be voided, the cases discussed in

25

the Complaint include, but are not limited to, District of Delaware cases 1:12-cv-282-SLR/RGA

26

and 1:14-cv-490-RGA, Northern District of California cases 3:15-cv-00023-EDL, and Federal

27

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

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
2

1

Circuit cases 14-1495, 15-1424, 15-1433, 15-1429, 15-1869 and 15-1831. Four of the 2015

2

Federal Circuit cases are appeals of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions.
III. STANDARDS

3
4

A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims

5

alleged in the complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.

6

1995). Dismissal “is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of

7

sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732

8

(9th Cir. 2001). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

9

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

10

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Pro se pleadings must be construed liberally. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th

12

Cir. 2000). The Court “need not give a plaintiff the benefit of every conceivable doubt” but “is

13

required only to draw every reasonable or warranted factual inference in the plaintiff’s favor.”

14

McKinney v. De Bord, 507 F.2d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 1974). The Court “should use common sense

15

in interpreting the frequently diffuse pleadings of pro se complainants.” Id. A pro se complaint

16

should not be dismissed unless the court finds it “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set

17

of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

18

519, 521 (1972).
IV. DISCUSSION

19
20

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a “short and plain statement of

21

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules

22

of Civil Procedure. Instead, the 230-page complaint contains legal terminology without setting

23

forth facts to establish the basis for relief. On this basis alone, Plaintiff’s complaint is defective.

24

Plaintiff’s complaint is also subject to dismissal because Rule 60 does not authorize the

25

relief Plaintiff seeks. Rule 60(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., permits a court to set aside a judgment for “any

26

other reason that justifies relief.” “[T]he Rule is used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

27

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

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
3

1

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party

2

from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Latshaw v. Trainer

3

Wortham Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting U.S. v. Washington, 394 F.3d

4

1152, 1157 (9th Cir 2005), in turn quoting U.S. v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047,

5

1049 (9th Cir. 1993)).

6

Rule 60(d)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., authorizes “an independent action to relieve a party from a

7

judgment, order, or proceeding.” Rule 60(d)(3) authorizes a court to “set aside a judgment for

8

fraud upon the court.” Independent actions under Rule 60(d), however, are “reserved for those

9

cases of injustices which, in certain instances, are deemed sufficiently gross to demand a departure
from rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata.” Palmer v. Stephens, 2016 WL 347302 (D.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Hawai’i 2016), quoting U.S. v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998). For a judgment to be set aside

12

under Rule 60(d)(3), the moving party must show clear and convincing evidence establishing

13

fraud. UBS Financial Services, Inc., 2014 WL 939290 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

14

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist in this case. Rather,

15

the dockets of Plaintiff’s previous cases indicate that Plaintiff has availed herself of multiple

16

opportunities to challenge orders and judgments she believes are erroneous. See generally

17

Cormier Decl. and Request for Judicial Notice and Exhibits. A party cannot use a Rule 60

18

independent action “as a vehicle for relitigation of issues.” Brown v. S.E.C., 644 Fed.Appx. 957,

19

959 (11th Cir. 2016), quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir. 1985).

20

As for Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud upon the court, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to

21

show who committed the fraud, what the fraud was, when the fraud occurred, or where and how

22

the fraud took place.

23

Moreover, Plaintiff’s lawsuit is barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Jones v.

24

U.S. Supreme Court, 2010 WL 2975790 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (judicial immunity bars claims that are

25

based upon allegations concerning judicial officer’s decision-making while presiding over cases

26

and acts performed in judicial capacity). Judicial immunity applies even where “the action [the

27

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

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
4

1

judge] took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather he will be

2

subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Mullis v.

3

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987), quoting Stump

4

v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). Application of judicial immunity, however, does not

5

leave plaintiffs who believe they received an unfavorable, unconstitutional decision without a

6

remedy: “[s]hould a federal judge or other federal official performing a judicial or quasi-judicial

7

act violate a litigant’s constitutional rights in a proceeding pending in federal court, Congress has

8

provided carefully structured procedures of taking appeals, including interlocutory appeals, and

9

for petitioning for extraordinary writs.” Mullis at 1394.
In addition, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s challenges to the PTAB decisions.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Title 35 U.S.C. §§319 and 329 set forth the proper procedures for appealing a PTAB decision.

12

Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff seems to be arguing that after she obtained her patents from

13

the Patent and Trademark Office in 1995, any further review or limitation of her patents is

14

unconstitutional. Plaintiff repeatedly invokes “patent prosecution history estoppel,” suggesting

15

this doctrine prevents further review of her patents. Patent prosecution history estoppel, however,

16

does not bar judicial review of patents. Rather, patent prosecution history estoppel “requires that

17

the claims of a patent be interpreted in light of the proceedings in the PTO during the application

18

process.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 733 (2002).

19

Moreover, recent authority confirms that judicial review of patents is constitutional. See MCM

20

Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (inter partes review does

21

not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution).

22

//

23

///

24

//

25

//

26
27
28

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-06591-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
5

V. CONCLUSION

1
2

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is DENIED, and Defendants’

3

motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file and serve an amended

4

complaint that complies with Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P., no later than September 30, 2017.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.: 5:16-CV-06591-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
6