Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01279/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01279-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-1279-WHA 

ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Michael A. Bruzzone’s motion, directed to the 

undersigned as Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California, seeking an order appointing “special counsel” and initiating “review,” through 

the court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, of the conduct of the district 

judge assigned to the above-entitled action – the Hon. William H. Alsup – and counsel for 

defendant Intel Corporation. Plaintiff also requests that Judge Alsup recuse himself from 

the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, and that the case be reassigned to another judge 

of this court. 

This case was filed on March 19, 2014 (Doc. 1). On May 21, 2014, the court 

issued an order striking the complaint, with leave to amend (Doc. 51). Briefly, the basis 

for striking the complaint was that the court had previously dismissed a False Claims qui 

tam action filed by plaintiff as the relator, in which the United States had declined to 

intervene, and in which plaintiff was improperly seeking to proceed pro se; and that the 

allegations in the present case were substantially similar, and the complaint, which 

purported to assert antitrust and RICO violations (among others), as well as claims of 

Case 3:14-cv-01279-WHA Document 116 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

fraud and negligence, was replete with references to plaintiff as “the relator.” 

The amended complaint – from which plaintiff was directed to remove any 

references to “relator,” “qui tam,” or the False Claims Act, or any suggestion that he was 

acting on behalf of the United States – was due on June 4, 2014. Plaintiff did not file an 

amended complaint. Instead, on June 4, 2014, he filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 144, seeking recusal of Judge Alsup (Doc. 54), which motion was referred to another 

judge of this court, who denied it on June 17, 2014 (Doc. 58). 

On June 17, 2014, Judge Alsup issued an order to show cause why the case 

should not be dismissed for lack of an operative complaint (Doc. 59). On June 27, 2014, 

plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, in which he asserted that the original 

complaint should not have been stricken and that amendment was “unnecessary” (Doc. 

71). Also on June 27, 2014, defendant Intel Corporation filed a motion seeking an order 

declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Doc. 61). 

On June 28, 2014, Judge Alsup issued an order dismissing the action (Doc. 72). 

Judgment was entered on that same date (Doc. 73). On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a 

notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit as to the order striking the complaint (Doc. 51), 

the order denying the recusal motion (Doc. 58), and the order to show cause re dismissal 

(Doc. 59). However, plaintiff did not appeal the final judgment. 

On August 14, 2014, after the motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant was 

fully briefed, Judge Alsup held a hearing and granted the motion on the record (Doc. 85). 

Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing. On August 19, 2014, Judge Alsup issued a written 

order granting the motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Doc. 88). 

On August 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order 

granting the vexatious litigant motion (Doc. 92). On September 2, 2014, Judge 

Alsup denied reconsideration (Doc. 94). On October 17, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued 

an order transferring plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 95). On November 20, 

2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order dismissing the appeal for failure to pay the filing 

fees (Doc. 98). 

Case 3:14-cv-01279-WHA Document 116 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

On August 18, 2015, nearly a year after Judge Alsup had denied the motion for 

reconsideration, and almost 14 months after entry of final judgment, plaintiff filed a 

second motion for reconsideration of the vexatious litigant order, combined with a request 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the judgment (Doc. 102). On 

August 24, 2015, Judge Alsup issued an order denying the motion (Doc. 103), with a 

follow-up order issued on September 1, 2015 (Doc. 104). 

On September 8, 2015, plaintiff a motion under Rule 60(b) (Doc. 105), again 

seeking reconsideration of the vexatious litigant order, and also seeking reconsideration 

of the order striking the complaint and the order denying the first motion for 

reconsideration. On September 22 and October 13, 2015, Judge Alsup again denied 

reconsideration (Docs. 106, 107). On November 16, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion that 

Judge Alsup disqualify himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b) (Doc. 109). 

The motion was denied on November 30, 2015 (Doc. 114). 

On December 15, 2015, plaintiff filed the present motion, alleging violations of Civil 

Local Rule 11-4, and seeking relief under Civil Local Rule 11-6. Specifically, plaintiff 

seeks appointment of a “special counsel” and referral to the court’s Standing Committee 

on Professional Conduct, for review of certain “acts of defendant [sic] attorneys and 

Judge William Alsup.” 

Local Rule 11 relates to standards applicable to attorneys who practice before this 

court; it does not apply to judges of this court. As for Intel’s attorneys, plaintiff has 

provided no facts sufficient to give the undersigned “cause to believe that an attorney has 

engaged in unprofessional conduct.” Civ. L.R. 11-6(a). Apart from plaintiff’s evident and 

continuing disagreement with the orders that have issued in this case, his primary 

complaint at this point appears to be that both Intel’s attorneys and Judge Alsup have 

referred to him as “not a relator.” 

The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that pro se plaintiffs are prohibiting from 

pursuing claims on behalf of others, and specifically may not prosecute False Claims qui 

tam actions on behalf of the United States unless they are represented by licensed 

Case 3:14-cv-01279-WHA Document 116 Filed 12/17/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

counsel. See, e.g., Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(citing United States of America ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 90 (2nd 

Cir. 2008)); see also Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 

(9th Cir. 2007) (“The FCA itself does not authorize a relator to prosecute a § 3729 

violation pro se.”). Thus, as a pro se party, plaintiff cannot pursue a False Claims action 

as a “relator” on behalf of the United States. 

Accordingly, the motion for referral to the Standing Committee is DENIED. 

Further, the court will not entertain any motions for reconsideration of this order. The 

court leaves to Judge Alsup the question whether he should recuse himself or request 

reassignment of the case to another judge of this court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01279-WHA Document 116 Filed 12/17/15 Page 4 of 4