The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR STAY, REMOVAL OF COUNSEL, REQUEST FOR
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AND TO SHORTEN TIME
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
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
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
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 ...