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.

Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California

August 19, 2014

INTEL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.


WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.


The essence of this matter is that our plaintiff has relentlessly pursued defendant manufacturer in a series of lawsuits that have now become extremely far-fetched and abusive. On motion, this order finds that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, at least as to litigation involving defendant and its employees, and will impose pre-filing restrictions.


Pro se plaintiff Michael A. Bruzzone describes himself as a "Relator" who became involved in investigating alleged "antitrust and espionage violations occurring domestically in the x86 microprocessor industry." He allegedly participated in the Federal Trade Commission's investigation of defendant Intel Corporation in 1998 and 1999 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 23). But he is not a "relator" and the United States is not a party to this civil action.

In 1999, Mr. Bruzzone filed a pro se complaint against Intel Corporation and others in Santa Clara County Superior Court. See Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al., No. 1:99-cv-779409 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct. Jan. 20, 1999) (Judge Mark Pierce). In 2001, he - via counsel Leshin & Dincel LLP - filed a second amended complaint alleging eighteen claims, including, inter alia, stalking, fraud, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. The action settled with confidential terms, but it "remains open for the purpose of allowing the Court to enforce the settlement" (Faulkner Decl. ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, Exhs. P, R).

In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Bruzzone filed two sealed actions in this district. See Nos. 3:08-cv-04169-WHA, 3:09-cv-00679-WHA. Both were terminated.

In 2010, Mr. Bruzzone was found "guilty of five counts of contempt of court for failure to obey" an October 2006 permanent injunction entered in the 1999 action. Judge James Emerson of Santa Clara County Superior Court found that Mr. Bruzzone "willfully disobeyed" the permanent injunction by: (1) initiating correspondence in July 2009 with four Intel executives with whom contact and correspondence were prohibited; (2) initiating email correspondence in August 2009 with an Intel executive with whom contact and correspondence were prohibited; (3) attempting to initiate telephone contact in August 2009 with an Intel executive with whom contact and dialogue were prohibited; (4) initiating email correspondence in August 2009 with an Intel executive with whom contact and correspondence were prohibited; and (5) initiating a second email correspondence in August 2009 with an Intel executive with whom contact and correspondence were prohibited (Faulkner Exh. T).

In 2011, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Intel Corporation in Santa Clara Superior Court. See Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, No. 1:11-cv-213829 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct. Nov. 29, 2011) (Judge Peter Kirwan). The complaint alleged eleven claims, including, inter alia, "Constructed Fraud to Misprison [sic] Federal Reporter, " "Corporate & Attorney Cover Up to Conceal Network Crime, " "Interference w/Prospective Business Advantage, " and "Retaliation." Paragraph 32 to the complaint stated (Faulkner Exh. I at ¶ 31-32) (emphasis omitted):

31 Intel agent objectives are three fold, first to depress into drug addiction, second to depress into suicide, third is to target for assassination stimulating cardiac arrest by agent implemented drug overdose including bating with drug as set up to record abuse, suspect stunning with Tazer, rewarding with drugs trapped in the confines of 11 foot by 11 foot space where handlers implement Staton DeGrandpre behavioral-pharmacologic conditioning, inject coming in and out of sedation confined in that space, and transported by car, interrogate in quasi lucent state know by Burkes reported too and allowed to escape by California Department of Justice, gassing, suspect electrocution and in one instance just avoiding what seems to be Anastasia in preparation for plaintiff's castration.
32 Mr. Bruzzone becomes strange attractor trapped as mad within operative's environmental illness where the crime ring comes back for more and through successive stings Mr. Bruzzone records and reports to FBI and Department of Justice in near real time the activities of a hit squad.

The action, according to Mr. Bruzzone, arose "under Department of Labor code, Federal false claims act, State and Federal antitrust and civil law" ( id. at ¶ 62). In 2012, he filed a pro se first amended complaint alleging eleven claims, including, inter alia, "Undue Influence, Duress, Manipulate Unsound Mind, " "Violation of Federal Civil Rights; 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, " "Intent to Destroy Plaintiff Beyond the Bounds of Fair Competition and Fair Play, " "False Light, " and "Gross Negligence." Judge Peter Kirwan described Mr. Bruzzone's claims as "unintelligible" and/or "time-barred." Intel's demurrer was sustained, although Mr. Bruzzone was permitted to amend the false light claim. Mr. Bruzzone then filed a second amended complaint seeking to "overrule" defendant's demurrer on "racketeering influenced organization's decade of obstruction in cartel case matter" and "witness character assassination." Intel's demurrer was sustained and Judge Kirwan stated: "Plaintiff's allegations are so confusing that Intel cannot reasonably respond" (Faulkner Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12-15; Exhs. I, K, L, M, N). The decision was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District, which stated that Mr. Bruzzone's argument was "brief and perplexing" (Second Supp. RJN, Exh. 1).

In October 2012, an order renewing Intel's permanent injunction was entered by Judge Mark Pierce. The permanent injunction is currently in effect. In the main, Mr. Bruzzone is to stay at least one hundred feet from Intel's buildings, is to stay at least fifty feet from certain Intel personnel, and cannot commence any communications and/or dialogue concerning Intel with certain Intel personnel. Violations of the permanent injunction are "punishable by one year in jail, a $1, 000 fine, or both, or may be punishable as a felony" (Dkt. No. 67-2).

In 2013, Mr. Bruzzone, via Attorney R. Kenneth Bauer, filed a qui tam complaint. See Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al., No. 3:13-cv-03729-WHA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013). The United States declined to intervene and consented to dismissal, without prejudice as to the United States (Dkt. Nos. 8, 20). In February 2014, Mr. Bruzzone "substitute[d] himself as his own counsel, In Pro Se" (Dkt. No. 25). At the third case management conference, Mr. Bruzzone made the following statements (Dkt. No. 36 at 8-9):

THE COURT: When is the last time you ever worked for Intel as an employee?....
MR. BRUZZONE: I was a consultant in 97, your Honor.
THE COURT: That was it? That's as close as you ever got to being an employee?
MR. BRUZZONE: They brought me in to provide my assessment of the anticompetitive activities I had seen in the field in August of 97, and by May of 1998, I had been invited by Mr. Robert Cook with the Federal Trade Commission to assist in Docket 9288. That went on through 2001, all the period of which I was retaliated against. That actually accelerated and escalated into 2005, 2006. I'm a survivor of being made a target by people who I consider were a hit squad, attempts on my life through 2005.
* * *
MR. BRUZZONE: I believe that there were detectives hired to assassinate me, your Honor, at that time.... The primary strategy is to create anxiety and depression and force you into various addictions, drug addictions, which they'd service and promote, and I believe that they were hoping that I would commit suicide and die by overdose.

His complaint was dismissed without prejudice and judgment was entered (Dkt. No. 31).

In March 2014, Mr. Bruzzone commenced the instant action by filing a pro se complaint (72 pages), titled "Federal Relator Civil Complaint." See Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation, et al., No. 3:14-cv-01279-WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014). The caption referenced Intel Corporation, "Advanced RISC Machines, Inc., " and various individuals ("Ms. Evangelina Almiranterena, Mr. Steve Lund, Dr. Harley Stock, Dr. Andrew Grove" and "Mr. Ian Drew, Ms. Yvonne Carey, Mr. Eric Shorn, Mr. Simon Segars, Mr. Ehab Youseff") as "Defendants." The complaint appeared to identify two claims: "Conspiracy to Defraud on Deceit" and "Gross Negligence" (Compl. ¶¶ 93-137, 138-152). Nonetheless, sprinkled throughout the complaint were references to numerous federal and state statutes and the Constitution, including, inter alia, the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985, and sections of the California Civil Code. The complaint also made passing references to many criminal statutes, including, inter alia, the "Anti kick back [sic] Act of 1986, " "Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341), " and "RICO [18 U.S.C.] 1961" (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 12, 53, 59, 64, 65, 77, 86, 89, 91, 92, 96, 134-37, 145, 150).

ARM, Inc. appeared stating that it was "erroneously sued as Advanced RISC Machines, Inc." and moved to dismiss. Intel moved to dismiss as well, identifying, inter alia, 24 federal laws mentioned in Mr. Bruzzone's complaint, which it argued was "unintelligible" (Dkt. No. 16).

In April 2014, Mr. Bruzzone filed a motion requesting "time to correspond to United States Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama" (Dkt. No. 37). He filed a declaration stating (Dkt. No. 53, Bruzzone Decl. ¶¶ 5, 33):

[P]laintiff's motion [asks] for time to contact Attorney General Holder, President Obama, Ms. Sara Winslow, Congress, United States Department of Labor, Office of Special Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, General Services Administration, Federal Trade Commission Investigator Generals of many agencies to secure administrative relief including attorney ...

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.