Ilaw v. Dep't of Justice
| Decision Date | 11 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-609 (CKK) |
| Citation | 148 F.Supp.3d 24 |
| Parties | Miguel Ilaw, Plaintiff, v. Department of Justice, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Miguel Ilaw, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Joseph Peter Harkins, Steven E. Kaplan, Littler Mendelson, PC, Robin Michelle Meriweather, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, Kenneth R. O'Brien, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
On April 21, 2015, Plaintiff Miguel Ilaw, proceeding pro se , filed suit against the United States Department of Justice, United States District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh, and Littler Mendelson, P.C., bringing several claims against Defendants for their actions related to an employment discrimination case brought by Plaintiff in a Ninth Circuit district court. Plaintiff alleges violations of his Constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
and 1985, as well as “Fraud upon the Court” and the “Tort of Outrage.”1
On July 10, 2015 the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Department of Justice and Judge Koh, in her official capacity, pursuant to Plaintiff's Application for Voluntary Dismissal of Action. See Minute Order (dated July 10, 2015). Plaintiff brings his remaining claims against Littler Mendelson and Judge Koh, in her individual capacity.
Presently before the Court are Judge Koh's [70] Motion to Dismiss and Littler Mendelson's [19] Motion to Dismiss. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's [54] Motion for Immunity Analysis and Denial of Entitlement, in which Plaintiff seeks an “immunity legal determination and denial of entitlement against Defendants.” Upon consideration of the pleadings,2 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court (1) GRANTS Judge Koh's [70] Motion to Dismiss; (2) GRANTS Littler Mendelson's [19] Motion to Dismiss; (3) DENIES the relief requested by Plaintiff in his [54] Motion for Immunity Analysis and Denial of Entitlement; (4) DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff's [40] Motion to Retain Venue; and (5) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's [82] Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court shall dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Judge Koh because (1) judicial immunity bars Plaintiff's claims; (2) res judicata precludes Plaintiff from relitigating issues that arise from the same set of facts as his earlier suit against Judge Koh; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) against Judge Koh.
The Court shall dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Littler Mendelson because (1) res judicata precludes Plaintiff from relitigating issues that arise from the same set of facts as his earlier suit against Littler Mendelson and (2) Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) against Littler Mendelson.
The Court shall enter JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, in its entirety.
On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action pro se . Plaintiff's 51–page Complaint is far from a model of clarity, containing a plethora of lengthy quotes and summaries of statutes, hearings, and other materials. Nevertheless, the Court has been able to discern the following factual allegations from the Complaint and will accept these allegations as true for the purposes of the pending Motions to Dismiss. See Atherton v. D.C. Office of Mayor , 567 F.3d 672, 681 (D.C.Cir.2009)
.
Plaintiff's claims originate in the termination of his employment in September 2010 by a hospital operated by the Daughters of Charity Health Systems (“the Hospital”). See Compl. ¶ 4. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was terminated “after alleging Title VII gender discrimination” in August 2010. Id. ¶ 4. In October 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a Notice of Right to Sue against the Hospital. Id.
In November 2010, Plaintiff filed a discrimination action against the Hospital in Superior Court in Santa Clara County. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff's counsel agreed with the Hospital's counsel, Defendant Littler Mendelson, to proceed with mediation through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceeding. See id. ¶¶ 9-11. After the parties' counsel negotiated an agreement resolving Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff terminated his counsel “for betrayal and legal misrepresentation” when “Plaintiff discovered (sic) local court rule violation” in the agreement. Id. ¶ 11. The court dismissed Plaintiff's action without prejudice, after Plaintiff moved for voluntary dismissal of his claims. See id. ¶ 13.
On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se , filed a Title VII action against the Hospital in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ilaw v. Daughters of Charity Health Sys. (“Ilaw I ”), No. 11-cv-02752 (N.D. Cal.). Compl. ¶¶ 16-19.
Judge Koh served as the presiding judge in that action. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. Defendant Littler Mendelson served as counsel to the Hospital. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. Judge Koh dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice after previously dismissing his complaint with leave to amend, reviewing the parties' two motions to dismiss, and holding a motions hearing. See id. ¶¶ 28-90; see also Ilaw v. Daughters of Charity Health Sys. ( I law I) , 2012 WL 381240, at *8 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 6, 2012)
. Judge Koh concluded that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred and that Plaintiff had not established grounds for equitable-tolling. See Compl. ¶ 83; see also
Ilaw I , 2012 WL 381240, at *7. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Koh's resolution of Ilaw I. See
Ilaw v. Daughters of Charity Health Sys., Inc. , 585 Fed.Appx. 572, 572–73 (9th Cir.2014). In its decision, the Court of Appeals opined that “the district court correctly concluded that Ilaw failed to exercise due diligence to preserve his legal rights, and that equitable tolling does not apply to extend the deadline.” Id. at 573. On February 23, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari. Ilaw v. Daughters of Charity Health Sys., Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1412, 191 L.Ed.2d 379 (2015).
On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff sued Judge Koh, Littler Mendelson, and a number of other defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ilaw v. Littler Mendelson PC, et al. (“Ilaw II”) , No. 13-cv-4851-JSW (N.D. Cal.). Specifically, Plaintiff named fifteen defendants, including Littler Mendelson, four of its attorneys, Judge Koh, the Hospital, JAMS, one of its mediators, and numerous others. See Second Amended Complaint, Ilaw II , No. 13-cv-4851-JSW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2013) (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff's second amended complaint in Ilaw II purported to seek relief for various alleged wrongs regarding the adjudication of Plaintiff's claims in his state court action and in Ilaw I
, the federal court action before Judge Koh. See id. ¶¶ 1-12.
As to Judge Koh, Plaintiff alleged, inter alia , that (1) Judge Koh dismissed the complaint in Ilaw I
despite her awareness that the defendants had violated his rights; (2) Judge Koh reviewed Plaintiff's claims under a “disguise of objectivity;” (3) Judge Koh was a participant in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his right to equal protection; and (4) Judge Koh was derelict in her alleged duty to act to prevent wrongdoing by the retired state judge who served as the mediator in Plaintiff's state court action. See
id. at 15, 39, 50, 56-58. Plaintiff's claims against Judge Koh included civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 as well as the “Tort of Outrage.” See
As to Littler Mendelson, Plaintiff alleged, inter alia , that Littler Mendelson (1) “bought” the mediator in Plaintiff's state court action, (2) “conspired to conceal [Plaintiff]'s medical injury report,” and (3) participated in the aforementioned alleged conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his right to equal protection. Id. at 35, 56. Plaintiff's claims against Littler Mendelson included (1) civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985
, 1986, (2) attorney misconduct, (3) violations of the California State Bar Act, and (4) the “Tort of Outrage.” Id. at 52-53.
Plaintiff also brought a number of claims against many of the defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
, but it is unclear from Plaintiff's amended complaint whether Plaintiff brought them against Judge Koh and Littler Mendelson. See
On January 14, 2014, Judge Jeffrey S. White dismissed Plaintiff's case with prejudice. See Order, Ilaw II , No. 13-cv-4851-JSW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014) (ECF No. 13). Specifically, Judge White dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims against Judge Koh, finding that judicial immunity barred Plaintiff's claims. Id. at 3. Judge White also dismissed Plaintiff's claims under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
, 1985, and 1986 on the basis that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under those statutes. Id. at 3-4. After having granted Plaintiff leave to file two amended complaints, Judge White concluded that any further attempts to amend would be futile, and dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Id. at 5.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. See Ilaw v. Littler Mendelson, PC, et al. , No. 14–15131 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2014) (ECF No. 14).
On February 24, 2015, after filing more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashbourne v. Hansberry
...of action or defense as distinguished from matters of practice, procedure, jurisdiction or form." Ilaw v. Dep't of Justice , 148 F.Supp.3d 24, 35 (D.D.C. 2015) (Kollar–Kotelly, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd sub nom . Ilaw v. Littler Mendelson P.C. , 650 Fed.Appx. 35 (D.C. Ci......
- Unite Here Local 23 v. I.L. Creations of Md. Inc.
-
Pilot v. Kollar-Kotelly, Case No. 17-cv-01337 (CRC)
...Complaint relies substantially, if not entirely, on naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement," Ilaw v. Dep't of Justice, 148 F. Supp. 3d 24, 37 (D.D.C. 2015) (CKK), he has failed to state a claim. Finally, the case must be dismissed on immunity grounds. As to the claims agains......