Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03300/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03300-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL TALCOTT CURRIER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT CHOW, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-03300 SI

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS BY CATHERINE HEMMER,

AND BY THE WHIM COMPANY AND

VICTOR MESHKOVSKY

Now before the Court are motions to dismiss brought by defendants Victor Meshkovsky and The

Whim Company (“Whim”), and by defendant Catherine Hemmer. Both motions seek dismissal of plaintiffs’

Third Amended Complaint without leave to amend. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the motions

suitable for resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearings set for January 6, 2006.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motions. 

BACKGROUND

This is the second set of motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. In a November 2,

2005, order, the Court granted motions to dismiss brought by four defendants, finding that the Third Amended

Complaint failed to comply with the notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The

defendants who have brought the current motions seek to have the complaint dismissed on similar grounds.

On August 12, 2005, plaintiffs filed their 81-page, 409-paragraph Third Amended Complaint, which

Case 3:04-cv-03300-SI Document 273 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1This Court’s November 2, 2005, order provides a more detailed description of the Third Amended

Complaint’s contents.

2

contains 21 causes of action against 23 separate defendants.1 The gist ofthe complaint appears to be that, in

1995, Currier developed a method ofwirelessinternet voice communications that would have been faster and

less expensive thanwhat was then available. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 66-69. Currier believed this new invention

had the potential to provide affordable wireless internet and telephone products to the entire world, including

to remote areas of developing nations. Id. In 1999, he founded corporate plaintiff Communication Bridge

Global, Inc. (“CBG”), conceivably to carry out his plan, although the complaint does not make this clear. Id.

at ¶¶ 70-71. Currier’s other company, Communication Bridge USA, Inc. (“CBUSA”), was later formed as

a subsidiary ofCBG. Id. The complaint then describes a vast network of conspiracies involving the Philippine

government, Currier’s ex-wife, and the entire telecommunications industry, the goal of which was to prevent

Currier’s idea from coming to fruition, to destroy his companies, and to steal his intellectual property. In

addition, the complaint mentions the evictionofCurrier’s alcoholismrecovery club, the Seven Seas Club, from

a building at 215 Leidesdorff Street, San Francisco apparently owned by Whim and Meshkovsky. Id. at ¶¶

119, 188. 

As mentioned above, in a November 2, 2005, order, the Court granted motions to dismiss brought by

four defendants. The Court found that plaintiffs’sweeping allegations failed to comply with the notice pleading

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and dismissed the charges against the moving defendants

with prejudice. For similar reasons, the Court GRANTS both motions to dismiss currently before it.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “(1) a short and plain statement

of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Under Rule 8(e), “each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” The

purpose ofthese requirementsis to “give the defendant fair notice ofwhatthe plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 103 (1957). In practical terms, the

Case 3:04-cv-03300-SI Document 273 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In connection with their motion, Whim and Meshkovsky have requested that the Court take judicial

notice of court documents filed by the parties in priorlitigation. The Court GRANTS this request (Docket No.

263).

3The Seven Seas Clubs is not a party to this action.

3

requirements ofRule 8 ensure that a defendant will be able to respond to the allegations against him. Edwards

v.N.Am. Rockwell Corp., 291 F. Supp. 199, 211 (C.D. Cal. 1968) (“Rule 8(a)(2) envisions the presentation

offactual allegations of sufficient clarity and certainty to enable defendants to determine the basis ofplaintiff’s

claim and to formulate a responsive pleading.”). They also help frame the lawsuit to guide case management

and discovery. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996).

DISCUSSION

For the same reasons provided in this Court’s November 2, 2005, order, the Court findsthat plaintiffs’

Third Amended Complaint does not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The

complaint contains sweeping allegations that are written so broadly that litigation would be unmanageable.

Moreover, despite its substantial length, the complaint does not provide the details necessary to give the

defendants fair notice ofplaintiffs’ claims against them. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motions

to dismiss, with prejudice.

1. The Whim Company and Victor Meshkovsky2

According to the Third Amended Complaint, Whim is “a California limited partnership” in which

Meshkovsky is a partner. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32-33. Although the allegations in the complaint are not

entirely clear, it appears thatWhim owned a building at 215 Leidesdorff Street in San Francisco. Id. at ¶ 183.

Currier apparently leased space in the basement of this building for the Seven Seas Clubs, Inc., an entity he

owned that helped people recover fromalcoholismand other addictions.3 Id. at ¶ 119, 183. Shortly after June

1, 2004, Whim evicted the Seven Seas Clubs from its building. Id. at ¶¶ 183. Plaintiffs allege that this was

done in furtherance of a conspiracy masterminded by Robert Chow, one of the central figures of plaintiffs’

Case 3:04-cv-03300-SI Document 273 Filed 01/04/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4The complaint alleges, at ¶ 119, “In March of 2003, Chow entered into RICO Conspiracy Number

Thirty-Four (34) with Meshkovsky and Whim to evict Currier’s new business, which Currier was operating

in the basement of 215 Leidesdorff, as well as the 5th-floor office, a recovery club known as the Seven Seas

Clubs, Inc., in separate and continuing continuity of acts of brutal economic oppression and forced

impoverishment of Currier, CBG and CBUSA, while relentlessly abusing legal process as now detailed in the

complaint in San Francisco SuperiorCourt Case No. 05-440882, Currier et al., v. Chow et al.” Paragraph

183 is to the same effect, although lengthier.

4

complaint. Id. at ¶¶ 119, 183.4 Chow was originally a defendant to this action but the claims against him were

dismissed with prejudice by an April 28, 2005, order.

Based upon these allegations, plaintiffs have brought nineteen causes of action against Whim and

Meshkovsky. Only two of these causes of action, however – the eleventh and twelfth – mention anything

related to these defendants. These allegations state that:

CHOW interfered with CURRIER’s and SEVEN SEAS’ attempts to buy the building [at 215

Leidesdorff] by placing multiple proxy bids on the building, and having CHOW’s proxy

bidders insist that SEVEN SEAS and CURRIER be evicted from the building.

Id. at ¶¶ 296, 306.

The Court finds that these allegations are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8. Nowhere

in the complaint are there allegations that would provide Whim or Meshkovsky with notice of the facts upon

which these charges are based. The complaint’s factual allegations do not mention any attempt by Currier to

purchase the building at 215 Leidesdorff, nordo they include any description ofbids, whether regular or proxy,

thatChow submitted on the building. Plaintiffs’ allegations are simply insufficient to give Whim or Meshkovsky

fair notice of the charges against them.

Even if plaintiffs’ complaint provided a more detailed description of the facts underlying these two

causes of action, the Court would still find that the overall length and breadth of the complaint warrants

dismissal under Rule 8. Plaintiffs have brought nineteen separate causes of action against Whim and

Meshkovsky, many ofwhich are plainly unconnected to any ofthe factualallegations against them. Rather than

bringing any legitimate causes ofaction in a more simple and straightforward manner, it appears that plaintiffs

have tried to cabin all oftheir outstanding grievances against the defendants into a complaint of unsupportable

breadth. This is insufficient under Rule 8. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178.

2. Catherine A. Hemmer

Case 3:04-cv-03300-SI Document 273 Filed 01/04/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5The claims against MetroFi and Covad were dismissed in prior orders of this Court..

5

According to the Third AmendedComplaint,Hemmer was the ChiefOperations Office [sic] ofCovad,

a telecommunications company that provides DSL services in the San Francisco Bay Area. See Third Am.

Compl. ¶¶ 27, 52, 54. Beyond the paragraphs that provide these background facts, the complaint explicitly

names Hemmer in only two paragraphs:

93. The Seventh (7th) RICO Conspiracy group involved Relevant Non-Parties, CHOW,

SYLVIA CHOW, and others, which Plaintiffs believe include members of the

COVAD executive team, including HAAS and HEMMER, to support the CHOWs

in their founders’ fraud ofCURRIER and those with interestsin CBG in the formation

of CBUSA.

* * *

95. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, at that time CHOW did work for HAAS and both

COVAD entities listed herein, and reported directly to HEMMER, then Chief

Operating Officer of COVAD. This Ninth (9th) RICO conspiracy, ‘the COVAD

conspiracy,’ has as a core component historic continuity established in late January or

early February of 2000, and continues on to this day.

Id. at ¶¶ 93, 95. The complaint also contains three paragraphs that refer to the Covad executive team:

96. In a subsequent further Tenth (10th) RICO Conspiracy, CHOW and his employers at

COVAD conspired to defraud the Fairmont Hotel in late March of 2000, where

CHOW attempted to promote DSL services to the Fairmont Hotel in opposition to

implementing CBG’s wireless telecom infrastructure in San Francisco, then the

CBUSA pilot, which utilized the San Francisco Fairmont Hotel as a key hub.

* * *

98. The Twelfth (12th) RICO Conspiracy to convert CBG and CBUSA assets included

the CHOWs, the CHOW family members, and the executive teamat COVAD, which

later incorporated to execute the CBG and CBUSA business plan through a new

company, known publicly as METROFI.

* * *

115. In May of 2002, the executive teamofCOVAD continued in an ongoing continuity of

conduct and action and executed RICO Conspiracy Number Thirty (30), whereby

they incorporated a new California corporation known as METROFI in order to

execute the business plans, designs, and technical processes taught by CURRIER to

CHOW, who in turn, illegally breached his (CHOW’s) contracts with Plaintiffs and

divulged all the intellectual property of Plaintiffs to the COVAD executive team and

operations groups . . . .

Id. at ¶¶ 96, 98, 115.5 

The Third AmendedComplaintdoes notcontain anyother allegations that appear to implicate Hemmer,

Case 3:04-cv-03300-SI Document 273 Filed 01/04/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

yet it includes Hemmer as a defendant in the nineteen causes of action brought against all defendants. Given

the length ofthe complaint, and the breadth of the charges, the Court finds that the cursory allegations against

Hemmer are insufficient to provide her with fair notice of the charges against her. Accordingly, plaintiffs’

complaint against Hemmer must be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 8.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the motions to

dismiss brought by Whim, Meshkovsky, and Hemmer (Docket Nos. 224 and 235). Plaintiffs’ complaint

against them is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03300-SI Document 273 Filed 01/04/06 Page 6 of 6