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.

Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California

February 27, 2014

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, Plaintiff,
v.
INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

For the reasons stated below and at the hearing held on February 27, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This action was originally filed as a qui tam action. After the United States declined to intervene and consented to dismissal without prejudice, plaintiff, without leave, transmogrified this action into an individual action against Intel Corporation. This was procedurally improper. The dismissal is without prejudice, although, this order in no way blesses any individual action Michael A. Bruzzone may file, or any of the allegations he has made.

* * *

On August 12, 2013, Michael A. Bruzzone, via his counsel Attorney R. Kenneth Bauer, filed this qui tam action.

After investigating Mr. Bruzzone's allegations and receiving an extension, the United States declined to intervene in October 2013 (Dkt. No. 8).

On October 29, an order lifted the seal and stated "[t]he relator shall serve the Complaint on defendants" (Dkt. No. 9).

On December 2, plaintiff, via counsel, stated that "he is not in the financial position to fund this action without government intervention, " and:

In that regard, Plaintiff will request an extension of time within which to serve the Summons and Complaint while he attempts to provide additional evidentiary information to the U.S. Attorney, and/or attempts to obtain funding support, and/or attempts to retain other counsel, and/or decides to move for dismissal of this action.

(Dkt. No. 11).

In light of these representations, at the December 4 case management conference, plaintiff was provided an extension to January 16 (Dkt. No. 15).

On January 10, 2014, plaintiff stated that "he is not in the financial position to fund this action without government intervention" and "[t]he Summons and Complaint have not yet been served on Defendants." Plaintiff was "in the process of amending the Complaint to simplify the allegations, and to delete all defendants except Intel" (Dkt. No. 17).

A January 16 order notified plaintiff that the action would be dismissed if he continued to fail to serve the only remaining defendant, Intel Corporation, and the United States consented to dismissal (Dkt. No. 18).

On January 16, the United States consented to dismissal without prejudice (Dkt. No. 20).

On January 24, plaintiff filed a "first amended qui tam complaint to recover damages for anti-competitive actions and retaliation" against ...


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.