Ottah v. National Grid
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-02935
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ottah v. National Grid, Judge Engelmayer dismissed Ottah’s patent-infringement complaint with prejudice because it repeated an earlier case.
Chikezie Ottah’s patent-infringement claims against National Grid were dismissed with prejudice, ending the case.
What happened
Chikezie Ottah, representing himself, sought $50 million from National Grid for allegedly infringing a patent. National Grid asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims were barred because Ottah had already brought and lost the same claim against National Grid in an earlier related proceeding.
A magistrate judge recommended granting National Grid’s motion and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Ottah objected, but the district court found that his objections were unclear and largely repeated his earlier arguments rather than directly challenging the recommendation’s conclusion that the claim was barred by claim preclusion, also called res judicata.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and dismissed Ottah’s complaint with prejudice. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case.
The detailed version
- Ottah v. National Grid · No. 1:22-cv-02935
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 1, 2023
Background
Chikezie Ottah, proceeding without a lawyer, sued National Grid for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and sought $50 million in damages. The opinion states that Ottah had previously filed similar actions in the same district, including an earlier related proceeding against National Grid before this court.
National Grid moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 16, 2022.
Report and objections
Judge Lehrburger recommended granting National Grid’s motion and dismissing the complaint with prejudice based on res judicata, also known as claim preclusion. The report concluded that Ottah asserted the same patent claim against the same defendant and did not identify an accused device different from the one involved in the earlier related proceeding.
Ottah filed an opposition that the court treated as objections to the report. The district court found that the objections were not specific and clearly directed at particular findings. Although the objections were read with the additional consideration given to filings by people without lawyers, the court found that they largely repeated arguments from the complaint and the earlier opposition to dismissal. The objections did not directly address the conclusion that the current complaint repeated Ottah’s earlier claim against National Grid.
Court’s analysis and ruling
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report are specific, the district judge reviews the challenged portions independently. When objections are only general or conclusory, the district judge reviews the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court applied clear-error review here because Ottah’s objections were insufficiently specific.
The court found no clear error in Judge Lehrburger’s report, adopted the report in its entirety, and dismissed Ottah’s complaint with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket 12, mail Ottah a copy of the decision, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.