Bruzzone v. United States Attorney of Northern California District

Background

Michael A Bruzzone represented himself. The court said his complaint was difficult to follow but understood it, for purposes of the order, as challenging the Government’s decision not to intervene in some of Bruzzone’s previous litigation against Intel. The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to comply with pleading Rules 8 and 10, and failure to state a claim. It also moved to expand existing pre-filing review orders. Bruzzone filed a motion concerning the submission of allegedly concealed evidence.

The court took judicial notice of the fact that records in 23 other cases and related documents had been filed, as well as judicial findings contained in those records. The opinion states that Bruzzone had previously been declared a vexatious litigant as to litigation involving Intel and certain related parties.

Motion to Dismiss

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for any of the claims the court could identify in the complaint. The Government had interpreted the complaint as potentially asserting claims under the False Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court adopted that interpretation for purposes of the order and agreed that sovereign immunity barred the claims.

The court also held, alternatively, that the complaint failed to state a claim. It understood Bruzzone to be suing because the Government declined to intervene in his qui tam action against Intel. The court explained that the False Claims Act does not require the Government to intervene; it permits the Government to elect not to proceed. The court also rejected any alleged contractual or quasi-contractual claim for more than $68 million, finding that the complaint did not allege facts supporting a plausible legal claim.

The court concluded that the complaint suffered from deficiencies that could not be cured by adding other facts. It therefore dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, using that exact disposition in addition to dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Expanded Pre-Filing Review Order

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s four-factor standard for pre-filing restrictions on vexatious litigants. It found that Bruzzone had notice and an opportunity to oppose the proposed order. It also found an adequate record based on his filing of more than 20 cases in state and federal courts, many involving or relating to Intel litigation, and incorporated the factual record and reasoning from earlier vexatious-litigant orders.

The court found Bruzzone’s conduct frivolous and harassing. It cited the number of cases, the legal unviability of the present case, and what it described as Bruzzone’s continued efforts to recover from someone for repeatedly rejected claims against Intel.

The Government proposed requiring prior permission for any complaint against the United States or any past, current, or future federal employee. The court found that proposal too broad. Instead, it expanded the pre-filing review order to cover cases against the Government or its employees that relate in any way to Bruzzone’s litigation or claims against Intel or Intel’s employees, agents, or attorneys.

The final order also continued restrictions requiring Bruzzone to obtain prior leave before filing specified pro se complaints against Intel and listed associated individuals and entities, against James McManis, William Faulkner, McManis Faulkner, and associated employees, or against the federal government and its employees when the complaints relate to his Intel-related litigation. A proposed filing must be submitted to the Clerk with a letter requesting filing and a copy of the order for review by the Duty Judge. The court warned that violating the order could lead to contempt proceedings, sanctions, and dismissal of an action filed in violation of the order.

Evidence Motion and Disposition

The court said it could not follow Bruzzone’s evidence motion or understand the relief he sought. To the extent he requested an evidentiary hearing or similar proceeding, the court denied the motion because it had found no subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the Government’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend, granted the Government’s motion to expand pre-filing review orders, and denied Bruzzone’s evidence motion. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the Defendant and close the case.