United States District Court, E.D. California
MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, Plaintiff,
INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael Bruzzone is proceeding in this action pro se. This
matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with
Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending
before the undersigned are defendants' motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint and defendants' motions to
declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (ECF Nos. 45 &
48.) For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will
recommend that defendants' motions to dismiss be granted,
the second amended complaint be dismissed without leave to
amend, and defendants' motions to declare plaintiff a
vexatious litigant be denied.
proceeding pro se, commenced this action on April 10, 2018,
by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The undersigned granted
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on September 28,
2018, and again on April 2, 2019. (ECF No. 3 & 15.) On
April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
(ECF No. 17.) And on May 30, 2019, plaintiff paid the
required filing fee.
nearly impossible to decipher, the second amended complaint
alleges, generally, that the “[d]efendants portray[ed]
Plaintiff['s] claims [as] merit-less appear (sic) a
blacklisting technique on malicious slander, libel, fraud and
contract interference[.]” (Sec. Am. Compl. (ECF No. 17)
at 6.) On June 24, 2019, defendant Intel
Corporation (“Intel”) filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 26.) On June 26, 2019,
defendant Intel filed a motion to declare plaintiff a
vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 28.) On July 19, 2019, defendant
ARM, Inc., and ARM Holdings PLC, (“ARM”), also
filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) and Rule
12(b)(6), as well as a motion to declare plaintiff a
vexatious litigant. (ECF Nos. 34 & 35.)
19, 2019, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant
Intel's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 39.) Defendant Intel
filed a reply on August 2, 2019. (ECF No. 42.) On August 2,
2019, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant ARM's
motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (ECF No.
46.) Defendant ARM filed a reply on August 9, 2019. (ECF No.
47.) Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on August 15,
2019. (ECF No. 49.)
Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to
12(b)(3) allows a defendant to challenge a complaint for
improper venue. “Once a defendant has challenged venue,
the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that venue is
proper in the chosen district.” United Tactical
Systems LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 108
F.Supp.3d 733, 751 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Piedmont
Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496
(9th Cir. 1979)). “When there are multiple parties
and/or multiple claims in an action, the plaintiff must
establish that venue is proper as to each defendant and as to
each claim.” Allstar Marketing Group, LLC v. Your
Store Online, LLC, 666 F.Supp.2d 1109, 1126 (C.D. Cal.
2009) (quotation omitted). Where an action is filed in the
wrong division or district the court “shall dismiss, or
if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to
any district or division in which it could have been
brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to
purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is
to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star
Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581
(9th Cir. 1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of
a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts
alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
determining whether a complaint states a claim on which
relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the
allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King
& Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v.
United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). In
general, pro se complaints are held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
However, the court need not assume the truth of legal
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.
United States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d
638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). While Rule 8(a) does not
require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more
than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading is insufficient if it offers mere “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676
(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.”). Moreover, it is inappropriate to assume
that the plaintiff “can prove facts which it has not
alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws
in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated
Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of
Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), the court is permitted to consider material which
is properly submitted as part of the complaint, documents
that are not physically attached to the complaint if their
authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff's
complaint necessarily relies on them and matters of public
record. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,
688-89 (9th Cir. 2001).
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b):
A civil action may be brought in--
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which the
district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which
an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this
section, any judicial district in which any defendant ...