Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00752/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00752-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00752-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KAILASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

DEBBIE SWANSON CENTI,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00752-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Re: Docket No. 25)

Defendant Debbie Swanson Centi moves to dismiss Plaintiff Kailash Chandra Chaudhary’s 

first amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).1 Because Chaudhary fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted, Centi’s motion is GRANTED. Because Chaudhary has already 

received leave to amend once,2and because res judicata and the statute of limitations continue to 

bar his claims, any further leave to amend would be futile and therefore is DENIED.

 

1

See Docket No. 25 at 2:11-26.

2

See Docket No. 23 at 4:11-15.

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 7
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00752-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

I.

Feb. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits challenges to the legal sufficiency of the opposing party’s 

pleadings.3 The court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as true and construe 

them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.4 The court’s review is limited to the face 

of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the 

court may take judicial notice.5 However, the court need not accept as true allegations that are 

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.6

This marks the third time that Chaudhary has attempted to challenge the loss of his parental 

rights, which he voluntarily relinquished in 1989.7 In this case, Chaudhary previously filed a 

complaint, which the court dismissed with leave to amend.8 Chaudhary then filed a first amended 

complaint, which in large part is identical to the original complaint.9

 

3

See Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 208 F.R.D. 288, 291 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

4

See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).

5

See id.

6

See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007) (“a wholly conclusory statement of [a] claim” will not

survive a motion to dismiss).

7

See Docket No. 26-1 at 1-2. The court takes judicial notice of the prior state and federal cases 

between Chaudhary and Centi: Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. 1:12-cv-2288137 (Santa Clara Cty.

Super. Ct., Mar. 12, 2013), affirmed, Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. H039733, 2014 WL 5500479, 

at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2014), review denied (Jan. 28, 2015); Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. 

5:93-cv-20967-RMW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 1993), affirmed, Chaudhary v. O’Neil, 70 F.3d 1277 (9th 

Cir. 1995).

8

See Docket Nos. 1, 23.

9 Cf. Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 1, 3-4, 5-40 with Docket No. 24 at ¶¶ 1, 3-4, 8-43.

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 7
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00752-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

II.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).10

III.

Chaudhary’s amended claims fail as follows.

First, Chaudhary’s claims are barred by res judicata.11 The doctrine of res judicata 

prohibits the re-litigation of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior 

action.12 It is immaterial whether the claims asserted subsequent to the judgment were actually 

pursued in the action that led to the judgment; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether they could 

have been brought.13 The purpose of the doctrine is to “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of 

multiple law suits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, 

encourage reliance on adjudication.”14 

Three elements must be present in order for res judicata to be applicable: (1) an identity of 

claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the same parties or privity between the parties.15 

An identity of claims exists when two suits arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts.16 

 

10 See Docket Nos. 14, 15.

11 Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure denotes res judicata as an affirmative defense. 

Ordinarily, affirmative defenses may not be asserted in a motion to dismiss. But res judicata may

be asserted when doing so does not raise any disputed issues of fact. See Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746

F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984); Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992).

12 See Western Radio Servs. Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997).

13 See Tahoe–Sierra Pres. Council, 322 F.3d at 1078.

14 Marin v. HEW, Health Care Fin. Agency, 769 F.2d 590, 594 (9th Cir.1985) (quoting Allen v. 

McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)).

15 See id.

16 See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, 322 F.3d at 1078.

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 7
4

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00752-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

Two events are part of the same transaction or series of transactions where the claims share a 

factual foundation such that they could have been tried together.17 “Different theories supporting 

the same claim for relief must be brought in the initial action.”18

Chaudhary’s claims against Centi were previously adjudicated by the Northern District of 

California in 199319 and the Santa Clara County Superior Court in 2013.

20

 The Superior Court 

entered judgment in favor of Centi21 and was affirmed on appeal.22

Like the initial complaint, the first amended complaint alleges virtually identical facts and 

circumstances as the 2012 Santa Clara County complaint. Indeed, the first paragraph of both the 

first amended complaint and the complaint state, “Present Complaint was started on July 10, 2012, 

in the Superior Court of the Santa Clara County.”23 In an attempt to survive res judicata, the first 

amended complaint includes new material at paragraphs five through seven, alleging that Centi 

alienated her daughter from Chaudhary and stole her daughter’s financial assets.

24

 However, 

although these claims are now differently worded, as before they are based on the same underlying 

facts as the 2012 Santa Clara County complaint: first, that Centi misappropriated her daughter’s 

 

17 See Western Systems, Inc. v. Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir.1992).

18 Id.

19 See Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. 5:93-cv-20967-RMW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 1993), affirmed, 

Chaudhary v. O’Neil, 70 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1995).

20 See Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. 1:12-cv-2288137 (Santa Clara Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 12, 

2013), affirmed, Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. H039733, 2014 WL 5500479, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. 

Oct. 31, 2014), review denied (Jan. 28, 2015).

21 See id.

22 See Chaudhary, Case No. H039733, 2014 WL 5500479, at *1.

23 Docket No. 1 at ¶ 1; Docket No. 24 at ¶ 1.

24 See Docket No. 24 at ¶¶ 5-7.

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 7
5

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00752-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

financial assets,

25 and second, that Centi broke alleged promises to encourage her daughter to 

maintain contact with Chaudhary, and to expose her daughter to Hindu faith and culture.26

Second, Chaudhary’s first amended complaint fails to overcome the applicable three-year 

statute of limitations set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. P. §338(a).27 Chaudhary’s initial complaint 

stated that the case ripened during communications with his daughter on January 18, 2012,28 but 

relied on events that occurred in 1987, 1989 and 1998.29 The first amended complaint also refers 

to events that occurred in 1987, 1989 and 1998,30 but now alleges that Chaudhary’s conversation 

with his daughter took place in March 2012,31 or alternatively, in March 2013.32 Chaudhary does 

not explain the change in dates between the initial and first amended complaints. The judicially 

noticed facts as to when Chaudhary became aware of the basis for his claims explicitly contradict 

his allegations of a March 2012 or March 2013 date. The Superior Court’s judicially noticed 

decision regarding Chaudhary’s 2012 Santa Clara County complaint establishes that Chaudhary 

was “aware of the basis for each of his claimed injuries and causes of action by no later than 

December 20, 1993” and that his claims were “time barred long before” that complaint “was filed 

 

25 Cf. Docket No. 24 at ¶¶ 5-6 with Chaudhary, No. H039733, 2014 WL 5500479, at *3 

(summarizing the 2012 Santa Clara County complaint’s allegations of theft).

26 Cf. Docket No. at ¶¶ 5-6 with Chaudhary, No. H039733, 2014 WL 5500479, at *3 (summarizing 

the 2012 Santa Clara County complaint’s allegations regarding Centi’s promises).

27 Ward v. Caulk, 650 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1981).

28 See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 48, 49.

29 See id. at ¶¶ 15-43, 46.

30 See Docket No. 24 at ¶¶ 18-45.

31 See id. at ¶¶ 2, 45.

32 See id. at ¶¶ 5, 7.

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 5 of 7
6

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00752-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

on July 10, 2012.”33 Accordingly, Chaudhary’s claims remain barred by the three-year statute of 

limitations, despite his unexplained alteration of the date of his conversations with his daughter. 

Third, Chaudhary’s first amended complaint fails to establish this court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction. Federal district courts have federal-question jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”34 An action “arises under” federal 

law only if the federal question appears on the face of the complaint. The first amended complaint 

raises claims against Centi under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.35 However, claims 

under the First and Fourteenth amendments require state action, and Centi is a private individual.36 

The Ninth Amendment claim also fails to present a federal question, as the Ninth Amendment does 

not independently secure any constitutional right for which Chaudhary may pursue a civil rights 

claim against the government, let alone a private individual.37 

Fourth, it is clear based on the litigation history of these parties and Chaudhary’s failure to 

cure the deficiencies of the initial complaint that his complaint cannot be saved by further 

amendment. The first amended complaint, the initial complaint, the 2012 Santa Clara County 

complaint, and the 1993 federal complaint all have alleged claims based on the same events.38 Res 

judicata and the statute of limitations bar claims arising out of these events. Chaudhary has 

presented the court with no basis to find that any further leave to amend would result in a 

 

33 Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. 1:12-cv-2288137 at 4:12-14 (Santa Clara Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 12, 

2013), affirmed, Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. H039733, 2014 WL 5500479, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. 

Oct. 31, 2014), review denied (Jan. 28, 2015).

34 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Furthermore, Chaudhary does not allege any basis for diversity jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

35 See Docket No. 24 at 26-29.

36 See U.S. Const. amend. I; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

37 See Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 1986).

38 See Docket No. 24; Docket No. 1; Docket No. 23 at 3:14-15; Docket No. 24-1, Ex. A at 2:24-25.

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 6 of 7
7

Case No.: 5:15-cv-00752-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

complaint that is not time-barred or collaterally estopped, making it clear that any further 

amendment would be futile.

IV.

Centi’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Because any further amendment would be futile, 

leave to amend is DENIED. A separate judgment will issue.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 34 Filed 08/28/15 Page 7 of 7