Huynh v. Walmart, Inc.

Background

Tri Minh Huynh proceeded without a lawyer. He alleged that Walmart, Walmart executives, lawyers and law firms, electronic-discovery companies and employees, Bank of America and an investment analyst, and other defendants formed a group to conceal alleged Walmart shareholder fraud, undermine Huynh’s Securities and Exchange Commission complaint, damage his earlier employment lawsuit, and influence judicial proceedings.

Huynh asserted three types of claims: a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a conspiracy to violate that statute, and a claim for damages based on an alleged violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. He alleged that defendants leaked confidential information, interfered with administrative complaints and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s review, destroyed or fabricated evidence in his earlier case, and improperly influenced a judge. Several defendants had already been voluntarily dismissed, and one named defendant had never been served.

RICO claims

The court applied the rule requiring a complaint to include enough factual matter to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on conclusions or speculation. It held that the amended complaint did not provide sufficient facts to support Huynh’s allegations that the defendants formed an enterprise or caused the injuries he claimed.

The court rejected Huynh’s allegations about the alleged theft and dissemination of confidential information. It found that the conduct he described—such as preparing administrative claims, delaying a lawsuit, disclosing witnesses, and producing documents—could be understood as ordinary litigation conduct and did not plausibly show a conspiracy between his former lawyer and opposing counsel.

The court also found insufficient facts connecting defendants’ statements, an investment report, or other alleged conduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision not to take enforcement action against Walmart. The court stated that Huynh had not shown a sufficiently direct connection between the alleged conduct and his claimed loss of a possible Securities and Exchange Commission award. It also stated that a potential award was not a concrete financial loss involving a recognized property interest.

The court separately found that Huynh’s allegations concerning electronic discovery, evidence destruction, and fabricated evidence did not support a reasonable inference that defendants engaged in the alleged misconduct. His allegation that defendants influenced a district judge was likewise unsupported by factual allegations. Because the amended complaint did not adequately plead a substantive RICO violation, the RICO-conspiracy claim also failed.

Constitutional claim

The court treated Huynh’s Fifth Amendment claim as a claim under Bivens, which permits damages claims for constitutional violations by federal officers in limited circumstances. The court dismissed that claim because Huynh sued private actors, not federal officers. His allegation that the defendants conspired with federal judges was deemed an unsupported legal conclusion and did not change that result.

Disposition

The court granted the motions for joinder. It granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, meaning the claims in that complaint could not be refiled through another amendment in this case. The court denied leave to amend because it found the RICO claims could not be cured by additional facts and the constitutional claims against private actors could not be cured.

The court declared a dismissed defendant’s motion to strike and certain earlier motions to dismiss moot. It noted that another motion to dismiss had been withdrawn by stipulation. Huynh’s motion seeking service-of-process costs against David deRubertis remained pending, and the court retained jurisdiction to decide it.