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.

Arunachalam v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

August 30, 2017

THE UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.


          EDWARD J. DAVILA, United States District Judge


         Pending before the Court are two separate motions. First, Plaintiff Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam (“Plaintiff”) seeks recusal of the undersigned judge. Although the basis for Plaintiff's motion is not entirely clear, it appears to be rulings by the undersigned that Plaintiff perceives as unfavorable. The motion is denied. Judicial rulings are not a proper ground for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

         Second, Defendants United States of America, United States District Court for the District of Delaware, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”), and United States District Court for the Northern District of California (collectively “Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend.


         Plaintiff's 230-page complaint is captioned “Independent Action Under FRCP R60(b)(6), 60(d) For Fraud Upon the Court, Where Compelling Circumstances Exist.” Plaintiff alleges that she is the inventor of eleven patents relating to real-time Web transactions from Web applications; that she founded a company called Pi-Net; and that she lost her business due to Defendants' alleged misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made certain judicial rulings against her interests at a time when she suffered from medical distress and was deprived of her constitutional right to be heard. She also alleges that Defendants failed to apply the correct legal standards regarding patent validity; failed to disqualify a judge for judicial bias and conflicts of interest; and failed to allow her to substitute in as Plaintiff in a case pending in Delaware. Plaintiff's complaint also includes allegations of malfeasance by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Clinton Foundation. Plaintiff's complaint also refers to discrimination, elder abuse, retaliation, cruel and unusual punishment, RICO claims, obstruction of justice, treason, civil rights violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and many other issues.

         The alleged violation of Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P., is predicated on the following:

Defendants committed fraud upon the court, where a unique combination of compelling circumstances exists and have existed and become a pattern, which has caused financial and medical injury to Plaintiff of the order of magnitude of trillions of dollars. This has been the biggest heist of the century, the theft of Plaintiff's patented Web applications displayed on a Web browser, such as Web banking, social networking and other Web applications in horizontal and vertical markets.

         Complaint, p. 190. In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to void the judgments issued in other cases in the Northern District of California, the District Court for the District of Delaware, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. In short, Plaintiff “seeks help from this court in any manner that reasonably aids the administration of justice.” Complaint, p. 191. Although the prayer for relief does not specify all of the cases in which Plaintiff believes orders or judgment should be voided, the cases discussed in the Complaint include, but are not limited to, District of Delaware cases 1:12-cv-282-SLR/RGA and 1:14-cv-490-RGA, Northern District of California cases 3:15-cv-00023-EDL, and Federal Circuit cases 14-1495, 15-1424, 15-1433, 15-1429, 15-1869 and 15-1831. Four of the 2015 Federal Circuit cases are appeals of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions.


         A motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims alleged in the complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Dismissal “is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

         Pro se pleadings must be construed liberally. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court “need not give a plaintiff the benefit of every conceivable doubt” but “is required only to draw every reasonable or warranted factual inference in the plaintiff's favor.” McKinney v. De Bord, 507 F.2d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 1974). The Court “should use common sense in interpreting the frequently diffuse pleadings of pro se complainants.” Id. A pro se complaint should not be dismissed unless the court finds it “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).


         As an initial matter, Plaintiff's complaint fails to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, the 230-page complaint contains legal terminology without setting forth facts ...

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.