Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01858/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01858-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Defendant
Mrinal Thakur
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MRINAL THAKUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC BETZIG et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-06603-JD 

ORDER RE DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 41

Plaintiff Thakur is on the mechanical engineering faculty at Auburn University. He alleges 

that defendants Betzig and Moerner won the 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry in part by plagiarizing 

an equation he developed for microscopy. He alleges that defendants Howard Hughes Medical 

Institute (“HHMI”) and Stanford University failed to properly train and supervise the Nobel prize 

winners to prevent plagiarism. Defendants move to dismiss Thakur’s first amended complaint, 

Dkt. No. 30, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 41. The motion is 

granted.1

LEGAL STANDARDS

The standards governing defendants’ motion to dismiss are well-established. Rule 8(a)(2) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To meet that rule and survive 

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This does not 

 

1

 Thakur’s opposition to the motion, Dkt. No. 43, exceeded the Court’s page limits in the 

Standing Order for Civil Cases. The parties are advised that any future filings that fail to conform 

to the Standing Order will be stricken from the docket. 

Case 3:18-cv-01858-JD Document 75 Filed 05/22/19 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

impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage. “[I]t simply calls for enough fact to raise a 

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of” the conduct challenged by plaintiff. 

Id. at 556. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The allegations in

the complaint must be sufficiently clear and concrete to give the defendant an “idea [of] where to 

begin” in preparing a response to the complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565 n.10. Determining 

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a “context-specific task that requires the 

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

The Court treats the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in 

plaintiffs’ favor. Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). But it will not 

“accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or 

unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(quotation omitted). If the complaint is dismissed, an opportunity to amend will be provided 

unless the Court determines that no cure is possible by new allegations of fact. Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).

To the extent the amended complaint seeks to allege claims that sound in fraud, Rule 9(b) 

also applies. Jones v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-06941-JD, 2018 WL 4521919, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2018). Rule 9(b) requires that a party “state with particularity the 

circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). A “pleading must identify the 

who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged, as well as what is false or 

misleading about the purportedly fraudulent statement, and why it is false.” United States ex rel. 

Anita Silingo v. WellPoint, Inc., 904 F.3d 667, 677 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and citation 

omitted); see also McLellan v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00036-JD, 2018 WL 2688781, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. June 5, 2018). 

DISCUSSION

The gravamen of the complaint is that defendants “plagiarized” and used Thakur’s 

“equation 3” without giving him credit for his work. See Dkt. No. 30 at ¶¶ 10-11, 14-15; Dkt. No. 

Case 3:18-cv-01858-JD Document 75 Filed 05/22/19 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

43 at 7-8. Thakur acknowledges that his work is not a trade secret and is not copyrightable. Dkt. 

No. 43 at 7, 22. Even so, he attempts to state claims for fraud and suppression, negligence, 

wantonness, negligent training and supervision, unjust enrichment, conversion, plagiarism, and a 

violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). Dkt. No. 30.

The problem with the amended complaint is that it does not allege facts that might state a 

plausible claim on any of these grounds against any of the defendants. The scope of what’s 

missing is substantial. For example, the amended complaint does not provide any facts

establishing: (1) the nature of equation 3 and Thakur’s authorship of it; (2) defendants’ use of 

equation 3 or any other work by Thakur; or (3) that any of the conduct Thakur sketches affected 

the Nobel Prize committee in any way. The amended complaint is long on conclusory allegations 

and almost devoid of material statements of fact. That will not do under Rule 8 to put defendants 

on fair notice of what they need to respond to in this case. 

An even greater concern is that the story told in the amended complaint is inherently 

implausible. Thakur in effect contends that defendants won a Nobel Prize based on a failure to 

credit his work or equation 3. That is an extremely improbable proposition. Common sense 

advises that Nobel Prizes are awarded on the basis of a rigorous examination of scientific 

contributions by experts in the field, and the consideration of a multitude of variables. Even 

accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true and giving Thakur every benefit of the 

doubt, it is impossible to tell how any of this had any bearing on the 2014 Chemistry Prize or that 

Thakur was injured in any legally cognizable way. The amended complaint certainly provides no 

facts that might make his extraordinary theory a realistic possibility. 

That is enough to warrant dismissal, but there are other deficiencies as well. None of the 

elements of fraud are pleaded with the specificity demanded by Rule 9(b). The negligence claims 

fail to state a cognizable duty of care and breach by defendants. See T.H. v. Novartis Pharm. 

Corp., 4 Cal. 5th 145, 163 (2017). The unjust enrichment claim is not supported by plausible facts 

and in any event is better viewed as a remedy and not a freestanding cause of action. See Astiana 

v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 2015). While the Court may construe an 

unjust enrichment claim as a quasi-contract claim for restitution, id., Thakur has not alleged facts 

Case 3:18-cv-01858-JD Document 75 Filed 05/22/19 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

showing a basis for a quasi-contract theory. Under California law, the torts of conversion and 

plagiarism do not apply to ideas. See Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc., 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 

793 (2003); Klekas v. EMI Films, Inc., 150 Cal. App. 3d 1102, 1111 (1984). 

Finally, the existence of a trade secret is an essential element of a CUTSA claim. See, e.g.,

Integral Dev. Corp. v. Tolat, 675 Fed. Appx. 700, 702 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Silvaco Data Sys. v. 

Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210 (2010)). After conceding that his work product is not a trade 

secret, Thakur cannot allege a CUTSA claim. 

CONCLUSION

The amended complaint is dismissed. While the Court has substantial doubt about the 

efficacy of another pleadings round, plaintiff will have one final opportunity to allege a plausible 

case. If he chooses to do so, plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 14 days of the 

date of this order. The case remains stayed in all other respects. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01858-JD Document 75 Filed 05/22/19 Page 4 of 4