Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00752/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00752-0/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 FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

(Re: Docket No. 16)

Defendant Debbie Swanson Centi moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff 

Kailash Chandra Chaudhary’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Because Chaudhary’s claims 

are insufficiently alleged and fail as a matter of law, Centi’s motion is GRANTED but with leave 

to amend as required by the Ninth Circuit. 

I. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 12(b)(6) are substantially identical; both permit challenges to the 

legal sufficiency of the opposing party’s pleadings.1 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.2 

The court’s review is limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint 

 

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

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

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 23 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 4
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 

by reference, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice.3 However, the court need 

not accept as true allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 

inferences.4

 

Chaudhary’s instant complaint marks the third time that he has attempted to challenge the 

loss of his parental rights, which he voluntarily relinquished in 1989 after he murdered his 

daughter’s mother.5

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). 

III. 

Choudhary’s causes of action fail as follows. 

First, Chaudhary’s claims are barred by res judicata.6 The doctrine of res judicata provides 

that a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by the parties or their privies based on the 

same cause of action.7 It prohibits the re-litigation of any claims that were raised or could have 

been raised in a prior action.8 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 

 

3 See id.

4 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). 

5 See Docket No. 1-1 at 6, 12; Docket No. 1-2 at 28, 40, 62. The court takes judicial notice of the 

prior state and federal cases between Chaudhary and Centi: Chaudhary v. Centi, Case No. 1:12-cv2288137, 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). 

6

 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). 

7 See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th 

Cir.2003). 

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

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 23 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

whether they could have been brought.9 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.”10 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.11 An identity of claims exists when two suits 

arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts.12 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.13 “Different theories supporting the same claim for relief must be brought in the 

initial action.”14 

Chaudhary’s claims were previously adjudicated by the Northern District of California in 

199315 and the Santa Clara Superior Court in 2012.16 The Superior Court observed that the 

(dismissed) 1993 complaint made “virtually identical allegations against Defendant” and barred his 

claims. The Superior Court entered judgment in favor of Centi17 and was affirmed on appeal.18 

The 2012 Santa Clara County complaint alleges virtually identical facts and circumstances 

as alleged in this complaint. Indeed, the first paragraph of the complaint states: “Present 

Complaint was started on July 10, 2012, in the Superior Court of the Santa Clara County.”19 

 

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

10 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)). 

11 See id. 

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

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

14 Id. 

15 See Chaudhary, Case No. 5:93-cv-20967-RMW. 

16 See Chaudhary, Case No. 1:12-cv-2288137. 

17 See Docket No. 1-2, Ex. A at 4:7-14. 

18 See Chaudhary, 2014 WL 5500479, at *1. 

19 See Docket No. 1 at ¶ 1. 

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 23 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

Second, Chaudhary’s complaint fails to overcome the applicable three-year statute of 

limitations set forth in Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 338(a).20 Chaudhary’s complaint states the case arose 

on January 18, 2012,21 and repeatedly refers to events that occurred in 1989 and 1998.22 

Chaudhary filed his complaint on February 18, 2015, outside the limitations period. 

Third, Chaudhary’s 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.”23 An action “arises under” federal law only if 

the federal question appears on the face of the complaint. Chaudhary argues that his claims are for 

civil rights under the Constitution, but his complaint fails to plead any such civil rights.24 

IV. 

Centi’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. Dismissal without leave to 

amend is only appropriate if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment such as 

after a plaintiff’s “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.”25 

Because Chaudhary has not previously amended his complaint and the court cannot yet say that 

amendment would be futile, leave to amend also is GRANTED. Any amended complaint shall be 

filed by June 23, 2015. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015 

 _________________________________ 

PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

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

21 See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 48, 49. 

22 See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 15-43, 46. 

23 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

24 Chaudhary has no standing as to the “federal crimes” he recites or any “undermining” of his 34-

year-old daughter. Nor does Chaudhary allege any basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. 

25 See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 

Case 5:15-cv-00752-PSG Document 23 Filed 06/10/15 Page 4 of 4