Fan v. California University - Silicon Valley

Background

Lingling Fan filed the case while representing herself. She initially filed it in the Southern District of New York, which transferred the action to the Northern District of California. Fan alleges that California University-Silicon Valley, Ivie Chen, and Philip Yang fraudulently induced her to enroll, withheld her diploma, and sought to prevent her from obtaining a license and competing with the defendants’ clinic. She also alleges that the defendants forced her to work at the clinic at “depressed wages,” that Philip Yang harassed or stalked her, and that the defendants or their associates arranged a car accident intended to injure her and interfere with her licensure. The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that people aligned with the defendants were responsible for a burglary and lockout in New York.

Fan sought $45 million in compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including issuance of a diploma and a verification letter, a no-contact or anti-interference order, and preservation and limited forensic imaging of evidence. Her complaint asserted diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction. It listed a federal claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called RICO, along with state-law and common-law claims.

Proceeding Without Prepaying Fees

Fan applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Although she did not use the application form the court had directed her to use, the court considered her short-form application. Because it showed no income or assets and some debt, the court found her eligible and granted the application.

Complaint Screening

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It found that the complaint did not state enough facts to support diversity jurisdiction because Fan did not allege the citizenship of each party. The court directed her to provide that information if she continued to rely on diversity jurisdiction.

The court also found that the complaint did not plausibly plead the RICO claim as currently written. Fan appeared to base the claim on alleged mail and wire fraud. Because fraud-based claims must be pleaded with particularity, the complaint needed to identify the time, place, and manner of each alleged fraud and each defendant’s role. The court found the allegations too general because they did not identify the people who made the alleged misrepresentations, the content of those representations, or when and where they were made. The court expressly did not assess whether the complaint adequately pleaded every element of the civil RICO claim.

Sealing Motion

Fan asked to seal her fee application and contact information based on privacy concerns. The court found that the information did not warrant sealing under the applicable rule, that Fan had not sufficiently explained the private or public interests supporting sealing, and that she had not followed the district’s procedures for sealing civil-case documents. The court denied the sealing motions without prejudice and directed Fan to follow the local procedures for any future sealing request.

Disposition

The court granted Fan’s application to proceed without prepaying fees, denied her sealing motions without prejudice, stayed service of process, and directed her to file an amended complaint by November 21, 2025. The amended complaint must address the citizenship allegations and provide the required detail for the fraud-based RICO claim. The order did not dismiss the case. It stated that if Fan failed to file on time, or failed to cure all identified defects, the court may reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in whole or in part.