Shankar v. Microsoft Corporation et al

Filing 140

ORDER. This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. This Court FINDS Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant and ORDERS as follows: The Clerk of the Court is INSTRUCTED not to automatically accept any further filings from Plaintiff, whether via counsel or himself, if they are: (1) brought against Microsoft Corporation, any of its current or former parents, subsidiaries, or affiliate companies, any of its current or former officers, directors, or employees; OR, (2) brought against any of th e attorneys or law firms that formerly or presently represent any of the parties in this or in past litigation. Instead, for any complaint Plaintiff submits in this District that falls into the above-laid categories, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTE D to file it under a miscellaneous case number for the Court's review prior to the issuance of summons or service of process. The Court further REVOKES Plaintiffs e-filing privileges in this matter. Instead, every motion, pleading, or other pape r filed in the instant case must be physically mailed to the Court in paper format and submitted to the undersigned judge for review and approval prior to docketing. The Clerks Office is DIRECTED to strike any paper that is not filed in accordance with these requirements. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (KRA)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

RAGHAVENDRAN SHANKAR,

10
v.

11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C24-0308-JCC
ORDER

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

13

Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Following repeated abuses, the Court

16

ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not impose a vexatious litigant order

17

against him and gave him 21 days to respond. (Dkt. No. 91 at 2.) The Court also warned Plaintiff

18

that “any filing that is unresponsive to the order to show cause [would] be stricken from the

19

record,” and further advised Plaintiff that the proper mechanism for opposing the Court’s final

20

judgment was to pursue an appeal with the Ninth Circuit. (Id.) Plaintiff responded as ordered

21

(Dkt. No. 96), submitted a praecipe to his response (Dkt. No. 108), and also continued to submit

22

nearly 40 frivolous filings in the span of five days. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 97–137.) This

23

includes a motion in limine (Dkt. No. 113), even though this case is not set for trial; two motions

24

for a temporary restraining order against the Court itself (Dkt. Nos. 114, 115); two motions to

25

amend the judgment (Dkt. Nos. 116, 129), even though the Court already denied a prior such

26

motion, (see generally Dkt. No. 86); and three purported motions for protective orders (Dkt. Nos.
ORDER
C24-0308-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

125, 132, 137), though the relief sought appears to be entirely outside the scope of what the rules

2

allow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). This is just a sampling of Plaintiff’s continued harassment and

3

abuse of the judicial process.

4

“Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person

5

to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims

6

of other litigants.” DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). To that end,

7

district courts have inherent power to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with

8

abusive litigation histories. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194,

9

1197 (9th Cir. 1999). Such an order should be entered only when (1) the litigant has received

10

notice and a chance to be heard before the order is entered, (2) there is “an adequate record for

11

review,” (3) the court has made “substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of

12

the litigant’s actions,” and (4) the vexatious litigant order is narrowly tailored to the litigant’s

13

wrongful behavior. DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147–48.

14

Here, the first three requirements are met. First, Plaintiff received adequate notice several

15

times, (see generally Dkt. Nos. 86, 91), and was afforded an opportunity to respond and amend

16

his response, (see generally Dkt. Nos. 96, 108). Plaintiff’s response fails to convince the Court

17

that a vexatious litigant order is unwarranted, especially when coupled with the numerous papers

18

he filed even after responding to the order to show cause—thus reflecting Plaintiff’s complete

19

indifference to the Court’s admonitions. Moreover, in general, there exists an adequate record to

20

demonstrate Plaintiff’s frivolous and harassing conduct, and his rampant disregard for the

21

Court’s previous orders. Finally, given Plaintiff’s repeated abuses against Defendant and the

22

Court, the Court finds it necessary to enter an order limiting Plaintiff’s ability to bring suit within

23

this District against Defendant and its counsel. Accordingly, this Court FINDS Plaintiff to be a

24

vexatious litigant and ORDERS as follows:

25
26

•

The Clerk of the Court is INSTRUCTED not to automatically accept any further filings
from Plaintiff, whether via counsel or himself, if they are:

ORDER
C24-0308-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

o (1) brought against Microsoft Corporation, any of its current or former parents,

2

subsidiaries, or affiliate companies, any of its current or former officers, directors,

3

or employees; OR,

4

o (2) brought against any of the attorneys or law firms that formerly or presently

5
6

represent any of the parties in this or in past litigation.
•

Instead, for any complaint Plaintiff submits in this District that falls into the above-laid

7

categories, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file it under a miscellaneous case

8

number for the Court’s review prior to the issuance of summons or service of process.

9

The following review provisions will apply:

10

o The Court will review the proposed Complaint to determine whether good cause

11

exists to permit the action to proceed based on the claims raised therein and

12

Plaintiff’s past litigation abuses. The proposed Complaint must comply with

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and provide a clear statement of the factual

14

and legal basis for each claim asserted, specifically identifying each defendant

15

against whom the claim is asserted. The proposed Complaint must be

16

accompanied by a signed statement explaining, on a claim-by-claim basis, (a)

17

whether each claim was raised in any prior action (with an appropriate citation)

18

and (b) why each claim is not barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, and/or an

19

applicable immunity.

20

o If the Court determines that good cause has not been shown, the action will be

21

dismissed sua sponte without further opportunity for response. If the Court also

22

determines that sanctions are appropriate, the Court will give Plaintiff notice and

23

an opportunity to respond.

24

•

The Court further REVOKES Plaintiff’s e-filing privileges in this matter. Instead, every

25

motion, pleading, or other paper filed in the instant case must be physically mailed to the

26

Court in paper format and submitted to the undersigned judge for review and approval
ORDER
C24-0308-JCC
PAGE - 3

1

prior to docketing. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to strike any paper that is not filed

2

in accordance with these requirements.

3
4

DATED this 4th day of November 2024.

A

5
6
7

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C24-0308-JCC
PAGE - 4