Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Ou-Young v. Rea

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 4, 2013

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
TERESA S. REA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE, GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DENYING-AS-MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Re: Docket Nos. 7, 12, and 20)

PAUL S. GREWAL, District Judge.

Before the court are Defendants Teresa S. Rea, Margaret A. Focarino, Donald T. Hajec, Jason J. Boeckmann, and Thurman K. Page's (collectively, "Defendants") motion to dismiss, Plaintiff Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young's ("Plaintiff") motion for disqualification of the presiding judge, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-1(b), the Court concludes that these motions are appropriate for determination without oral argument.[1] Having considered the papers the court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for disqualification of the undersigned judge, GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss, and DENIES-AS-MOOT Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

This case stems from Plaintiff's disagreement with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") over the patentability of Plaintiff's patent application for "High Volume Dripping Hoses."[2] On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Plaintiff's patent application was subject to fabricated anticipation and obviousness rejections to "intimidate plaintiff into abandoning his patent applications."[3] The complaint alleges that the "examiner conspired with the USPTO for the agency to deny plaintiff's petitions for review."[4] Plaintiff now "seeks to hold the examiner and the USPTO accountable for these criminal offenses."[5] Plaintiff also "seeks to recover damages from severe mental stress caused by such criminal practices."[6]

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1)

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) tests whether a complaint alleges grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. A jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) may be facial or factual.[7] Where the attack is facial, the court determines whether the allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction, accepting all material allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction.[8] Where the attack is factual, however, "the court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations."[9] In resolving a factual dispute as to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, a court may review extrinsic evidence beyond the complaint without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.[10]

Once a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction.[11] To satisfy this burden the plaintiff must present admissible evidence.[12] The court is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise.[13]

B. Motion to Disqualify

28 U.S.C. ยง 455(a) provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

C. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."[14] The moving party bears the initial burden of production by identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact.[15] If the moving party is the defendant, he may do so in two ways: by proffering "affirmative evidence that negates an essential element" of the nonmoving party's claim, or by demonstrating "the nonmoving party's evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim."[16] If met by the moving party, the burden of production then shifts to the non-moving party, who must then provide specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial.[17] The ultimate burden of persuasion, however, remains on the moving party.[18] In reviewing the record, the court must construe the evidence and the inferences to be drawn from the underlying evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.[19]

III. ANALYSIS

A. Motion for Disqualification of the ...


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.