Shao v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 17 January 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 18-1233 (RC)
• Parties: YI TAI SHAO, Plaintiff, v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

YI TAI SHAO, Plaintiff, v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 18-1233 (RC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

January 17, 2019

Re Document Nos.: 31, 45, 58, 65, 75, 80, 81, 84, 117, 142

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND FOR CHANGE OF VENUE, GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SUA SPONTE DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS AGAINST ALL REMAINING DEFENDANTS, AND DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Yi Tai Shao, a California resident, has brought this suit against a wide variety of defendants in connection with a California child custody case that has been ongoing since 2005. In her amended complaint, Shao includes fourteen claims against sixty-seven named and forty-six unnamed defendants, including parties, attorneys, court clerks, judges, and third parties, all linked in some way to the child custody case or to the multiple legal proceedings Shao has instituted in connection with it over the past eight years. After the Court denied a motion to disqualify, Shao has now filed a renewed motion to disqualify and for change of venue. Many of the defendants have also moved to dismiss for lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. For the same reasons it denied the initial motion to disqualify, the Court denies Shao's renewed motion to disqualify and for change of venue. And because it finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over all of Shao's claims, the Court dismisses this case.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The Underlying Custody Case and Initial Custody Determination

In 2005, Shao filed for divorce from her now ex-husband, Tsan-Kuen Wang, in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8, ECF No. 16; In re the Marriage of: Linda Shao and Tsan-Kuen Wang, No. 1-05-FL126882 (Cal. Sup. Ct.).¹ Shao and Wang initially agreed to split custody of their daughter 50/50. Id. ¶ 87. However, Shao's daughter began complaining about sexual abuse while in Wang's care in early 2010, id., and the County of Santa Clara investigated the claims, see id. ¶¶ 57-58. B.J. Fadem, a California attorney, was appointed as guardian ad litem for Shao's daughter in May 2010. See id. ¶ 58. After county workers allegedly conspired to keep Shao's child away from her with Superior Court employees; Wang's attorney, David Sussman; and the judge assigned to her case, Judge Edward Davila,² see id. ¶¶ 43, 54-57, 71, Judge Davila issued an expedited custody order depriving Shao of custody of her daughter on August 5, 2010, see id. ¶¶ 88-92.

On August 20, 2010, Shao hired attorneys James McManis, Michael Reedy, and McManis Faulkner, LLP ("the McManis Defendants") to challenge the expedited custody order. See id. ¶¶ 98. However, Shao fired the McManis Defendants within a year after allegedly realizing that they were engaged in a conspiracy with Sussman and Judge Davila to deprive her of custody. See id. ¶ 99-104. According to Shao, the conspiracy was facilitated by Judge Davila and the McManis Defendants' common membership in a chapter of the American Inns of Court,id. ¶ 98, an organization that she alleges provides a nationwide platform to facilitate private ex parte communications and judicial corruption, see id. ¶¶ 23, 335-36. Over the next three years, several other Superior Court judges issued a variety of decisions in Shao's custody case. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 103-105. Shao alleges that these judges, too, were involved in conspiracies to deprive her of custody with Sussman or with some or all of the McManis Defendants. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 102-103, 105. Shao alleges that a final custody order depriving her of the custody of her daughter was eventually entered in November 2013. See id. ¶¶ 122.

At various points during the litigation, Shao appealed orders of the Superior Court. E.g. id. ¶¶ 109-13, 128-29, 138. Shao's appeals went first to the California Sixth District Court of Appeal, then to the California Supreme Court, and for some to the United States Supreme Court. E.g. id. ¶¶ 128-29. Shao attributes the denial of her appeals at all appellate levels to a conspiracy between the McManis Defendants and the judges and justices involved, again facilitated by the platform for corruption offered by the American Inns of Court. E.g. id. ¶ 109-13.

2. Malpractice Suit Against the McManis Defendants and Prefiling Injunction

After Shao fired the McManis Defendants, she brought suit against them for malpractice in 2012. Id. ¶ 141. The case was dismissed, and Shao refiled a malpractice suit against the McManis Defendants in federal court in 2014. Id. ¶ 142. Judge Lucy Koh dismissed the federal suit and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Id. ¶ 145. As with previous judicial decisions going against her, Shao alleges that the judges involved all conspired with the McManis Defendants to ensure she would not succeed, "through the influence [the McManis Defendants] wield through their powerful giant social club The American Inns of Court." Id. Following the dismissal of her federal case, Shao moved to set aside the dismissal of her state malpractice suit.Id. ¶ 146. The McManis Defendants responded by moving to declare Shao a vexatious litigant under California law, and by asking for a prefiling injunction to issue against her. See id. ¶ 147. The Superior Court granted the motion and issued a pre-filing injunction against Shao. See id.

3. Continued Litigation in the Custody Case and Alleged Hacking

In the past five years, Shao has extensively litigated her custody case. See generally id. ¶¶ 156-256. Shao alleges that the McManis Defendants have continued to conspire to deprive her of the custody of her daughter, in a scheme involving the judges issuing decisions in her cases, third parties connected to the litigation, and Wang and his attorney. See id. Shao places the McManis Defendants at the center of the conspiracy, allegedly using their various relationships and the connections they made through the American Inns of Court to "ensure that SHAO not regain custody of her child . . . [and] maintain[] their no causation defense to malpractice." Id. ¶¶ 159-160. She alleges that various California judicial defendants "knowingly misused the vexatious litigant order" fraudulently obtained by the McManis Defendants to block motions in her custody case. E.g. id. ¶ 219. She believes that the many judges involved in her case have engaged in a wide range of improprieties, including issuing secret ex parte communications and court orders, illegally altering case dockets, and failing to docket or maliciously dismissing her motions without review. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 159-208. And she alleges that the McManis Defendants organized "the same scheme of illegal notice, alteration of docket and deterrence" in the United States Supreme Court, again through secret, corrupt connections they made there through the American Inns of Court. See id. ¶¶ 257-58.

At some point in 2018, Shao "started posting on Youtube several radio show videos . . . about the judicial corruption going on in her cases." Id. ¶ 305. In response, Shao alleges that Google and Youtube conspired with the McManis Defendants and Chief Justice Roberts toharass her, see id. ¶¶ 305-14, including by deleting comments on her Youtube videos, id. ¶ 306, suspending her Google e-mail accounts, id. ¶ 307, having vehicles follow her, id. ¶ 308, putting her under electronic surveillance, id. ¶ 313, and hacking her computer, cell phone, and office phone, id. ¶¶ 310-12. Shao attributes Google's decision to conspire with Chief Justice Roberts to a favorable decision he purportedly issued in a pending case Google had before the Supreme Court. See id. ¶ 314. Aside from their conspiracy with Google, Youtube, and Chief Justice Roberts, Shao also alleges that the McManis Defendants arranged for hackers to infiltrate her computer and alter or destroy files relating to her pending cases. See id. ¶¶ 315-19.

4. Procedural History of This Case

Shao brought the instant case on May 21, 2018. See Compl. at ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. In her amended complaint, filed on June 29, 2018, Shao brings claims against sixty-seven named defendants: the McManis Defendants; the American Inns of Court, the Honorable William A. Ingram American Inn of Court, and the San Francisco Bay Area American Inn of Court (the "American Inn Defendants"); the McManis Defendants' attorney in the malpractice action, Janet Everson; United States Supreme Court Justices and clerks (the "Supreme Court Defendants");³ judges and employees of the United States Judiciary (the "Federal Judicial Defendants");⁴ members of Congress and several Congressional entities (the "Congressional Defendants");⁵former California Superior Court Judge Edward Davila and a large number of other judges and employees of the California judicial system (together, the "California Judicial Defendants");⁶ retired Justice of the California Sixth District Court of Appeal Conrad Rushing; the County of Santa Clara and several of its employees (the "Santa Clara Defendants");⁷ Google and Youtube (the "Google Defendants"); and Wang, Sussman, Fadem, and several third parties who were at some point or another involved in the custody action.⁸

Most of the defendants have now moved to dismiss, including the McManis Defendants; Everson; the American Inn Defendants; the California Judicial Defendants; the Santa Clara Defendants; the Google Defendants; custody evaluator John Orlando; psychologist Carol Tait-Starnes; alleged hacker Esther Chung; Fadem; and Fadem's replacement as guardian ad litem for Shao's daughter, Elise Mitchell. See Docket, Shao v. Roberts, No. 18-cv-1233-RC (D.D.C.). Shao has separately moved to strike a large number of motions and for judicial notice of a wide variety of facts. See id.

Shao also moved to disqualify this Court and for a change of venue on July 6, 2018, followed by a motion to stay these proceedings on August 5, 2018. See Pl.'s First Mot...