Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


October 12, 2005.

WANXIA LIAO, Plaintiff,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge

Defendants Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco (the Superior Court), Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay, Judge Paul H. Alvarado and Maura Ramirez (collectively, Superior Court Defendants) move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Wanxia Liao's complaint against them.*fn1 Plaintiff opposes the motion, and also moves for a stay of this action, for removal of Kay Yu, counsel for Superior Court Defendants, for approval of a telephonic appearance and to shorten time on these motions. The matters were submitted on the papers. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS Superior Court Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 15). The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motions for a stay, for removal of counsel, for telephonic appearance and to shorten time (Docket No. 22).


  The following facts are all taken from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC). Plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, brought a civil rights lawsuit against James Cahill, a former professor at the University of California, that was heard by the Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges generally that Superior Court Defendants engaged in a cover-up for Mr. Cahill and intentionally sabotaged her case against him. She also alleges that Defendant Ramirez, a court clerk, cooperated with Judge Quidachay and Judge Alvarado and forged court documents for the purpose of having Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages on her claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  Plaintiff filed her complaint against Mr. Cahill and the Regents of the University of California in the Superior Court on May 9, 2002. On May 19, 2003, Judge Quidachay issued an order sustaining the defendants' demurrer, with leave to amend the claims against Mr. Cahill to plead that his absence from California tolled the applicable statute of limitations. On May 29, 2003, Plaintiff "served a Notice of Abandonment of the Whole Action on the Defendants counsel" stating that she believed Judge Quidachay was biased against her because his order did not "provid[e] any reason and only allowed [Plaintiff] the specific leave to amend in that the permitted amendment was in fact untenable." FAC ¶ 20. In this notice, Plaintiff also stated her intention to refile the action in an alternative forum. Apparently, this notice was filed on June 2, 2003.

  On June 19, 2003, Mr. Cahill moved to dismiss Plaintiff's State court action on the grounds that she had failed to amend her complaint as ordered. On June 20, 2003, Judge Alvarado dismissed Plaintiff's entire action with prejudice. Plaintiff claims that because she had filed her "Notice of Abandonment of the Whole Action," Judge Alvarado, in dismissing her case, "acted in complete absence of jurisdiction." FAC ¶ 26. Plaintiff appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal as untimely. Plaintiff also filed a civil rights case against Mr. Cahill in federal district court. That case was dismissed on grounds of res judicata.

  On February 20, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Superior Court against both the Superior Court and Mr. Laurenson, counsel for Mr. Cahill, seeking revocation of Judge Quidachay and Judge Alvarado's orders. Judge Quidachay sustained a demurrer in that case without leave to amend, and later denied Plaintiff's subsequent application for revocation of the order.

  On August 27, 2004, Mr. Laurenson filed a motion to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant based on her attempts to continue litigating the claim. On October 20, 2004, Judge Quidachay granted the motion, and required Plaintiff to furnish security in order to pursue her litigation against the Superior Court and Mr. Laurenson. Plaintiff acknowledges that Judge Quidachay "may have an excuse" for this ruling, based on "some misunderstandings or confusions cause by the Summons on 1st Amended." FAC ¶ 28. Plaintiff appears to allege that Ms. Ramirez fraudulently issued a summons to Mr. Laurenson based on an amended complaint, although he was no longer a proper party to the State case. FAC ¶¶ 28-30, 34. Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Ramirez issued the summons to Mr. Laurenson to trap Plaintiff into being prosecuted as a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff also objects to the fact that Judge Quidachay, in finding her to be a vexatious litigant, considered two actions filed in Canada, and concludes therefore that his order was issued "in complete absence of the most fundamental jurisdiction." FAC ¶ 31.

  On October 25, 2004, Plaintiff filed in Superior Court a "Notice of Dismissal of Entire Action without Prejudice as against Defendant San Francisco Superior Court only." FAC ¶ 22. She also moved for reconsideration of Judge Quidachay's October 20, 2004 order, explaining that the confusion caused by the allegedly improper Summons was "induced by Court Supervisor Ramirez's fraud." FAC ¶ 28. The motion for reconsideration was denied. On December 2, 2004, Judge Quidachay granted Mr. Laurenson's motion to dismiss the case for failure to furnish the required security.

  Plaintiff states that, because she had no prior dealings with Judge Alvarado and Judge Quidachay, racial discrimination is "the only reason possible" for their acts. FAC ¶ 33. Plaintiff filed a timely appeal of Judge Quidachay's dismissal with the California Court of Appeal. Defendants Reardon, Sepulveda and Rivera, all judges on the Court of Appeal, denied the appeal in an unpublished opinion. Plaintiff's petition for rehearing was dismissed by Defendant Judge Kay. Plaintiff currently has an unspecified "request" pending before Defendant Ronald George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. FAC ¶ 23.


  A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be denied unless it is "clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002)).

  A complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). "Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e). These rules "do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is `a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds on which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).

  The Court, however, "is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged." Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.