Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03884/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03884-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joan Betts
Defendant
Elaine M. Brong
Defendant
Robert Curtis
Plaintiff
Tom Doss
Defendant
William Elliot
Defendant
Insurance Company of the West
Defendant
Randy Lopez
Defendant
George Mansfield
Defendant
Annette McRoberts
Defendant
Frank Noonan
Defendant
Steve Shapiro
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ROBERT CURTIS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 JOAN BETTS, STEVE SHAPIRO, WILLIAM

ELLIOT, ELAINE M. BRONG, GEORGE

MANDFIELD, TOM DOSS, RANDY LOPEZ,

FRANK NOONAN, INSURANCE COMPANY

OF THE WEST, ANNETTE McROBERTS

Defendants. /

No. C05-03884 MJJ

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

I. Discussion

On September 26, 2005, Plaintiff pro se Robert Curtis filed a document entitled “A True

Conspiracy to Defraud Robert Curtis” against Defendants Joan Betts, Steve Shapiro, William Elliot,

Elaine M. Brong, George Mansfield, Tom Doss, Randy Lopez, Frank Noonan, Insurance Company of

the West, and Annette McRoberts. (Doc. #1.) The Court construes this document as a Complaint.

From what the Court can discern, the basis underlying Plaintiff’s Complaint is a construction contract

he had with the Bureau of Land Management. Apparently, on September 25, 2000, Plaintiff received

a Default Notice relating to the contract. According to Plaintiff, the Default Notice was in error because

no cure notice was issued prior to the Default Notice; 15 days remained under the contract; and over

60% of the construction had been completed. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that the Default Notice

constituted a breach of contract that was “supervised and condoned by Elaine M. Brong, Steve Shapiro,

Case 4:05-cv-03884-PJH Document 23 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Tom Doss, Randy Lopez [and] George Mansfield.” Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

Insurance Company of the West “remain[ed] silent” thereby “guarantee[ing] the [b]reach of [c]ontract

and the destruction of Robert Curtis.” Plaintiff further alleges that the Insurance Company of the West

sued him, and that Ms. Brong, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Elliot, and Mr. Noonan falsely accused him of extortion

because Plaintiff had filed a wrongful default claim. From what the Court can glean from the

Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff was later prosecuted. He alleges that the Defendants were the

impetus for criminal charges being brought against him. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks $100

million in damages. 

The United States has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on several grounds. While the

United States filed their Motion in case No. C 05-3884-MJJ, the caption of their Motion and the opening

paragraph identify the “ Treasury Department” and its employees as the defendants. Mr. Curtis has filed

another civil action in this district in which he names the Treasury Department as a defendant. (See case

No. C 05-4964, Doc. #1.) However, in case No. C 05-3884-MJJ, the Treasury Department is not one

of the named Defendants. Consequently, there is a discrepancy between the Defendants named in

Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the defendants that are identified in the United State’s Motion to Dismiss. 

Additionally, as one of its proffered bases for dismissal, the United States contends that Plaintiff

has already litigated his claims against Defendants in the United States District Court in Oregon. The

United States also points out that Judge Maxine Chesney recently dismissed another one of Plaintiff’s

lawsuits on the ground that Plaintiff had previously brought the same lawsuit in district court in Oregon.

(See case No. C 05-3883-MMC, Doc. #7.) In support of its argument, the Government attaches a copy

of an Order that Judge Owen Panner of the District of Oregon issued dismissing one of Plaintiff’s

actions filed in the District of Oregon, as well as Judge Chesney’s recent order dismissing the C 05-

3883-MCC action. While both Orders discuss the nature of Plaintiff’s other complaints, neither does

so in sufficient detail that the Court can assess whether case No. C 05-3884-MJJ is identical to any of

Plaintiff’s previously filed and dismissed actions. To enable the Court to fully assess the United States’

argument, the Court directs the United States to file copies of any complaints and orders dismissing such

complaints that the United States contends preclude Plaintiff from bringing the instant action. 

Case 4:05-cv-03884-PJH Document 23 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

II. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court orders the United States to file a brief, not exceeding two pages,

clarifying which case it is seeking to dismiss and attaching any court filings from the District of Oregon

as described in this Order. The United States shall file its brief and supporting documents by February

23, 2006. 

Further, the hearing on the United State’s Motion to Dismiss set for February 28, 2006, is

VACATED, and will be re-set by the Court, if necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-03884-PJH Document 23 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 3