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.

Glassey v. MicroSemi Inc

United States District Court, Northern District of California

December 29, 2014

TODD S. GLASSEY and MICHAEL E. MCNEIL, Plaintiffs,
v.
MICROSEMI INC, U.S. GOVERNMENT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR BROWN, THE IETF AND THE INTERNET SOCIETY, APPLE INC., CISCO INC., EBAY INC., PAYPAL INC., GOOGLE INC., JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFT CORP., NETFLIX INC., ORACLE INC., MARK HASTINGS, ERIK VAN DER KAAY, AND THALES GROUP, and

GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND VACATING HEARINGS

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Two pro se plaintiffs seek to obtain millions of dollars in damages for the "largest fraud loss in history" based on allegations they say "sounded Looney originally." Nevertheless, they have sued more than twenty defendants, including the United States. Plaintiffs claim to own the intellectual property rights to "a part of virtually all networking systems in use globally" and that their rights "control most online commerce in the U.S. today." A week after filing their second amended complaint, plaintiffs filed six "dispositive" motions, including a motion to take a multi-trillion dollar loss on their 2014 taxes and a motion to assign themselves patent rights they admit they do not own.

Having reviewed the more than 1, 000 pages larded in the record by plaintiffs, this order rules as follows. For the reasons stated herein, all claims are Dismissed with prejudice.

The motions to dismiss are GRANTED. All of plaintiffs' motions are DENIED.

Pro se plaintiffs are Todd Glassey and Michael McNeil.[*] Defendants include the United States, the "State of California, " individuals, and many technology companies - including, Apple Inc., Cisco Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc., Juniper Networks Inc., Microsemi Inc., Microsoft Corp., Netflix Inc., Oracle Corp., PayPal Inc., and more. The United States has appeared and at least seven law firms were retained for this matter.

In essence, to the extent comprehensible, the eighty-page second amended complaint alleged that plaintiffs assigned their intellectual property rights to an entity called Datum Inc. in 1999 via two settlement agreements. Defendant Microsemi Corp. is now the assignee of the patents referenced in the second amended complaint.

After the settlement agreements were signed - approximately seven years later - plaintiffs commenced a lawsuit in Santa Cruz Superior Court, alleging malpractice, breach of contract, and other claims arising from the settlement agreements. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. McNeil, et. al. v. Symmetricom, Inc., No. CV-165643 (Santa Cruz Sup. Ct).

Plaintiffs subsequently commenced a new lawsuit in federal court. Glassey, et al. v. Symmetricom, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04662-NC (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Nat Cousins). That action was voluntarily dismissed as well, after an order to show cause regarding subject-matter jurisdiction was issued.

Pro se plaintiffs later commenced this action. Their motion for a "three-judge panel" was denied. Six defendants then moved to dismiss and in an October 2014 order, the first amended complaint was stricken. Plaintiffs were given one more chance to plead their best and most plausible case. They were warned that failure to cure the identified deficiencies could result in dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 109). The initial case management conference was vacated.

An eighty-page second amended complaint was then filed. A week later, plaintiffs filed six motions. Defendant Internet Society filed a motion to dismiss. Both sides were then invited to show cause regarding whether the second amended complaint should (or should not) be stricken. Defendant Microsemi, Inc. then filed a motion to dismiss.

In response to the order to show cause, plaintiffs, the United States, and the other defendants (who have appeared) each filed briefs. This order rules as follows.

1. Renewed Motion for Three-Judge Panel.

Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. A prior order denied the original motion for a three-judge panel (Dkt. No. 70). Now, plaintiffs move again for a three-judge panel. As ...


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.