Arnold v. Melwani
| Decision Date | 09 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | CV. NO. 09-00030 DAE |
| Parties | RICHARD T. ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. MANU P. MELWANI, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone |
(2) GRANTING JUDICIARY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DECLARE
On October 19, 2012, the Court heard Former Guam Judiciary Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 133), Former Guam Judiciary Defendants' Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (doc. # 135), and Melwani Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 158). Plaintiff Richard T. Arnold appeared pro se on behalf of himself; B. Ann Galey-Keith, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Current Guam Judiciary Defendants; Assistant Attorney General Marianne Woloschuk appeared on behalf of the Former Guam Judiciary Defendants; and Robert Kutz, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Melwani Defendants.
After reviewing the motions and the supporting and opposingmemoranda, the Court GRANTS the Former Guam Judiciary Defendants' and Current Guam Judiciary Defendants' (collectively, "Judiciary Defendants") Motion to Dismiss; GRANTS the Melwani Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and GRANTS the Judiciary Defendants' Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant.
The instant action arises out of a contract dispute between Plaintiff Richard T. Arnold's ("Plaintiff") construction company, Pacific Superior Enterprises Corp. ("PSEC"), and Defendant Manu P. Melwani ("Melwani") over ownership rights to payment on a renovation project for Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority ("GHURA") residential housing units. On June 14, 1996, GHURA filed an interpleader action, CV887-96, against PSEC and Melwani in the Superior Court of Guam to determine ownership rights to money owed by GHURA for the renovation of the housing units. (See "SAC," doc. # 124 at 2.) Melwani filed a crossclaim against PSEC, and PSEC filed a counterclaim and third-party claim. Plaintiff's dispute with Melwani has spurred over a decade of litigation in the Superior Court of Guam and the Supreme Court of Guam.
On December 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant action in federal district court, seeking to recover money related to his dispute with Melwani that he alleged the Superior Court of Guam had withheld from him in a "fourteen year . . .unconstitutional prejudgment attachment." (See doc. # 1 at 1.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 11, 2010. (Doc. # 16.) On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff moved for the recusal of Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, which she denied. Plaintiff then sought reconsideration of that ruling, which Judge Tydingco-Gatewood also denied. (Docs. ## 46, 58.) Plaintiff then appealed the order denying reconsideration to the Ninth Circuit, but the action was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
On March 31, 2011, the Court dismissed the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. # 92.) However, in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend as to Counts I, II and IV of the FAC. (See id. at 6.) The Court dismissed Count III—in which Plaintiff challenged the legality of certain decisions of the Superior and Supreme Courts of Guam—with prejudice based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and judicial immunity. (See id. at 7.) The Court then entered judgment as to Count III on March 31, 2011. (See doc. # 93.)
The Melwani Defendants1 filed a Motion to Amend Judgment onApril 14, 2011, asking that the Court dismiss the entirety of the FAC with prejudice. (Doc. # 95.) Shortly thereafter, on April 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed three motions. First, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's prior March 31, 2011 Order dismissing Count III of the FAC with prejudice. (Doc. # 98.) Second, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate an August 14, 2000 decision of the Superior Court of Guam granting partial summary judgment and the final judgment entered in favor of Defendant Melwani on May 8, 2001. (Doc. # 99.) Third, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam in Special Proceedings Case No. 0057-07. (Doc. # 100.) Approximately one week later, Plaintiff filed a fourth motion, a Notice of a Constitutional Question, challenging the constitutionality of District of Guam Local Civil Rule 7.1. (Doc. # 101.)
On August 31, 2011, the Court issued an order denying the Melwani Defendants' Motion to Amend Judgment (doc. # 95) and also denying all four of Plaintiff's motions (docs. ## 98–101). (Doc. # 112.)
On October 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 31, 2011 Order dismissing Count III with prejudice. (Doc. # 114.) The motion also asked for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's constitutional question in its August 31, 2011 Order. (Id.)On January 20, 2012, the Melwani Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. # 120.) On January 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Melwani Defendants' Opposition. (Doc. # 122.)
On January 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 31, 2011 Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration as to the Court's dismissal of Count III of the FAC with prejudice (doc. # 98) and denying Plaintiff's two Motions to Vacate various judgments of the Superior and Supreme Courts of Guam (docs. ## 99, 100). (Doc. # 123.)
On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed the present Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").2 (Doc. # 124.) On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Summonses and Second Amended Complaint and Motion for Order to Have U.S. Marshall's [sic] Service to Serve Same. (Doc. # 131.) On June 13, 2012, a group of defendants comprised of current sitting members of the Guam judiciary3 ("Current Guam Judiciary Defendants") filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. # 138). On June 14,2012, a group of defendants made up of former members of the Guam judiciary ("Former Guam Judiciary Defendants")4 joined the Opposition (doc. # 139).
On June 12, 2012, the Former Guam Judiciary Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike the SAC ("Former Guam Judiciary Defendants' Motion to Dismiss"). (Doc. # 133.) The Former Guam Judiciary Defendants also filed a Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant ("Vexatious Litigant Motion") the following day, on June 13, 2012. (Doc. # 135.) The Current Guam Judiciary Defendants substantively joined both motions. On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Former Guam Judiciary Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 144) and an Opposition to the Vexatious Litigant Motion (doc. # 145). On July 5, 2012, the Former Guam Judiciary Defendants filed a Reply regarding their Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 147) and a Reply regarding their Vexatious Litigant Motion (doc. # 148).
On August 7, 2012, the Melwani Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("Melwani Defendants' Motion to Dismiss"). (Doc. # 159.) On August 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Melwani Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 162.) The Melwani Defendantsdid not file a Reply.
Finally, on August 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate the Court's August 31, 2011 Order. (Doc. # 164.) On September 14, 2012, the former and current members of the Guam judiciary filed Oppositions to Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (docs. ## 166, 167), which the Melwani Defendants joined on September 18, 2012. (Doc. # 168.)
On September 20, 2012, the Court issued an Order (1) Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration (docs. ## 114, 123) and (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (doc. # 164).
On October 16, 2012, three days before the Court's scheduled hearing on the Guam Judiciary Defendants' and Melwani Defendants' motions, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Court's September 20, 2012 order (doc. # 179) and a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (doc. # 180). The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Stay.5 (Doc. # 181.) On November 8, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.(Doc. # 188.)
The Court held a hearing on the Guam Judiciary Defendants' and Melwani Defendants' motions on October 19, 2012. The Court directed the Judiciary Defendants to file relevant portions of the record in the Superior Court of Guam and the Supreme Court of Guam and allowed Plaintiff to file additional relevant case law no later than October 26, 2012. On October 19, 2012, the Former Guam Judiciary Defendants filed a Supplement to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 183.) On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit and Supporting Documents Concerning SP0057-07 and a Motion for Extension of Time to File Supporting Documents in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. (Docs. ## 186, 187.) On November 8, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time. (Doc. # 189.) On November 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intent to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. # 190); and on January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notification and Certificate of Service indicating that he planned to move for partial summary judgment on or before January 15, 2013.
A federal court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The court maydetermine jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) so long as "the jurisdictional issue is [not] inextricable from the merits of a case." Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2008).
"[U]nlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the district court is not confined by the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial