Mikkilineni v. PayPal Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 20-647-CFC-SRF |
| Parties | MAHESWAR MIKKILINENI, Plaintiff, v. PAYPAL INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Plaintiff Maheswar Mikkilineni ("plaintiff") proceeds pro se in this action against defendants PayPal, Inc. ("PayPal"), Shijil TS/Sparksupport Infotech Pvt Ltd. ("Shijil"), GoDaddy.com, LLC ("GoDaddy"), and Director CfA-CXC Center for Astrophysics/Harvard-Smithsonian ("the Director of CfA-CXC"). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2020, in the Superior Court of Delaware, in a second attempt to assert causes of action against an employee of the Smithsonian for negligence and/or gross negligence, bad faith and/or fraud, and violations of his constitutional rights. Presently before the court are the following motions by the United States of America (the "United States")1: (1) the motion to substitute party (D.I. 3),2 and (2) the motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (D.I. 4).3 Also pending before the court are plaintiff's various requests for relief, whichhe combined in a single filing: (1) the motion for discovery and oral hearing, (2) the motion for convening a three-judge panel, and (3) the motion to remand. (D.I. 6)4 For the following reasons, I recommend GRANTING the United States' motion to substitute party, GRANTING the United States' motion to dismiss, DENYING plaintiff's motion for discovery and oral hearing, DENYING plaintiff's motion to convene a three-judge panel, and DENYING-IN-PART and GRANTING-IN-PART plaintiff's motion to remand.
On May 17, 2019, plaintiff initiated this action in Delaware Superior Court. On July 26, 2019, the United States filed a notice of removal to this court, a motion to substitute itself as a party to replace defendant Director/Chandra X-ray Center (CXC) for Astrophysics/Harvard & Smithsonian (CfA), and a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (C.A. No. 19-1391, D.I. 1; D.I. 3; D.I. 4) In response, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, motions for discovery, and motions to remand to Delaware Superior Court. (C.A. No. 19-1391, D.I. 5; D.I. 13; D.I. 14; D.I. 20) On January 28, 2020, the court issued a report and recommendation, which, among other things, recommended granting the United States' motion to substitute a party, denying plaintiff's motions for discovery, granting the United States' motions to dismiss, and granting-in-part and denying-in-part plaintiff's motions to remand.5 Mikkilineni v. Paypal Inc., C.A. No. 19-1391-SRF, 2020 WL 434330, at *8(D. Del. Jan. 28, 2020). On February 18, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. (C.A. No. 19-1391, D.I. 32) On February 21, 2020, the court overruled plaintiff's objections and adopted the report and recommendation. Mikkilineni v. Paypal Inc., C.A. No. 19-1391-CFC, 2020 WL 871545, at *2 (D. Del. Feb. 21, 2020).
On March 10, 2020, seemingly in response to this court's dismissal of plaintiff's prior claims against the United States in C.A. No. 19-1391, plaintiff filed a substantially similar amended complaint6 against defendants PayPal, Shijil, GoDaddy, and the Director of CfA-CXC in the Delaware Superior Court.7 On May 15, 2020, the United States, on behalf of the Director of CfA-CXC, again removed the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute,8 and 42 U.S.C. § 233(c). (D.I. 1) That same day, the United States filed motions to substitute itself in place of the Director of CfA-CXC and to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (D.I. 3; D.I. 4) On May 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for discovery and oral argument, requested a three-judge district court panel, and moved to remand the case in response to the notice of removal. (D.I. 6)
As a preliminary procedural matter, plaintiff argues that the amended complaint is not the operative pleading in this litigation because it was improperly filed without leave of the Delaware Superior Court. (D.I. 8) In support of his argument, plaintiff attached the letter of Judge Wallace, the Delaware Superior Court judge presiding over the related state court proceedings. (D.I. 6 at A-5-A-8) Judge Wallace scheduled a hearing to address plaintiff's "serial putative amended pleadings," as well as pending motions filed by the state court defendants. (Id. at A-6-A-7) Judge Wallace was prepared to address plaintiff's attempted amendments, including plaintiff's second attempt to include the federal defendant, the Director of CfA-CXC. (Id. at A-7 n.4) However, the removal by the Director of CfA-CXC, even if deemed premature or improper, suspended state court jurisdiction over the case. (Id. A-7 n.3) Thus, this court will view the amended complaint favorably to the plaintiff, as if amendment was permitted, since both sides in the pending matter have argued their respective motions in reliance upon it as the operative pleading.9
On March 13, 2019, plaintiff sent a formal proposal, entitled "Neutron (Dark Object or DNA) within Solar Sun-Sirius System," to the Director of CfA-CXC.11 (D.I. 1, Ex. A at 16) On the same day, the Director of CfA-CXC's clerk sent plaintiff confirmation of having received his proposal. (Id.) On May 8, 2019, plaintiff emailed the Director of CfA-CXC, writing "[p]lease advise me on the status on or before May 14, 2019 or I may have to assume you have 'no' interest to review-consider the proposal, and I am free to initiate an 'action' under the laws." (Id.) On May 30, 2019, the Director of CfA-CXC's clerk responded and noted that proposals were subject to peer reviews that were not open to the general public. (Id.) The clerk told plaintiff that applicants who had submitted proposals could expect to be notified of the results of their peer review within a few weeks of the closing date. (Id.)
On July 25, 2019, an individual from the Director of CfA-CXC's office notified plaintiff that his proposal had not been selected. (Id. at 16-17) The Director of CfA-CXC's office noted that it had received 516 proposals and, given available observing time and funding, only 168 were accepted. (Id.) The Director of CfA-CXC's office also explained that no proposal with a grade below 3.5 was recommended for inclusion in the Chandra observing program and thatplaintiff's proposal received a grade of "0.00." (Id.) Plaintiff was told that his proposal was not feasible because his proposed "target [did] not have coordinates at which we can point to the accuracy required to ensure that it lies in our small field of view" and because the proposed target was "not demonstrated to be an X-ray source." (Id. at 4) Plaintiff asserts claims of negligence and/or gross negligence, bad faith and/or fraud, and violations of his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments against the Director of CfA-CXC. (Id. at 20)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or if the plaintiff lacks standing to bring its claim. Motions brought under Rule 12(b)(1) may present either a facial or factual challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Lincoln Ben. Life. Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Common Cause of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 558 F.3d 249, 257 (3d Cir. 2009)). In reviewing a facial challenge under Rule 12(b)(1), the standards relevant to Rule 12(b)(6) apply. In this regard, the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and the court may only consider the complaint and documents referenced in or attached to the complaint. See Church of Universal Bhd. v. Farmington Twp. Supervisors, 296 F. App'x 285, 288 (3d Cir. 2008); Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000). In reviewing a factual challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the court is not confined to the allegations in the complaint. See Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). Instead, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings, includingaffidavits, depositions and testimony, to resolve any factual issues bearing on jurisdiction.12 See Gotha v. United States, 115 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 1997). Once the court's subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Lincoln, 800 F.3d at 105; Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891.
Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Umland v. Planco Fin. Servs., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).
To state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56.
The court's determination is not whether the non-moving party "will ultimately prevail," but whether that party is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial