(PS) Al Azzawi v. Kellogg Brown and Root, No. 2:2015cv01468 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/14/16 RECOMMENDING the 29 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the 26 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Jackson, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Al Azzawi v. Kellogg Brown and Root Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAMEEDH AL AZZAWI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:15-cv-1468 GEB AC (PS) ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KELLOGG BROWN AND ROOT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. The proceeding was referred to a United 18 States Magistrate Judge by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant has moved to dismiss, and the 19 parties have fully briefed the motion. ECF Nos. 29, 30, 31.1 The undersigned has determined 20 that the matter may be resolved without the need for a hearing. I. THE COMPLAINT 21 As best the court can tell, the complaint alleges the following.2 Defendant is the prime 22 23 contractor under U.S. government Prime Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007. Complaint at 2 & 24 1 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff has filed a “Supplement” to his opposition to the motion to dismiss. This filing is not authorized by the Local Rules, and is disregarded. 2 Plaintiff’s 851-page complaint (including exhibits), is composed of seven single-spaced pages, with paragraphs stretching to 50 unbroken lines, followed by hundreds of pages of incorporated exhibits. It plainly does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, which requires a “short and plain” statement showing why this court has jurisdiction, and why plaintiff is entitled to relief. However, since this amended complaint is even longer and more difficult to read than the original 257-page complaint (including exhibits), the undersigned will attempt to interpret it rather than ask plaintiff to try again. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Exh. Y (ECF No. 26-1 at 49, 50). Al-Farez Wamed Co. (referred to in the complaint as “Al 2 Farez”), is the subcontractor under Subcontract No. 02H8-VS-SJ00163. Complaint at 2 & Exh. Y 3 at 49, 50. Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached this contract. Plaintiff signed the contract as 4 the “General Manager” of Al Farez. Complaint Exh. Y at 50. 5 Plaintiff further alleges that on September 25, 2012, he initiated an arbitration claim 6 against defendant with the “ICDR,” which, according to the exhibits to the complaint, refers to 7 the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. Although plaintiff alleges that he initiated the 8 arbitration claim, it is clear from the exhibits attached to the complaint that Al Farez is the sole 9 “claimant.” See, e.g., Exhs. J (ECF No. 61 at 277, 332), K (ECF No. 61 at 281). According to 10 the complaint, defendant submitted false and fraudulent documents during the arbitration, and 11 defendants otherwise committed fraud during the arbitration proceedings. Plaintiff alleges that 12 “the Arbitrators gave their Final award” on January 27, 2016. 13 II. MOTION TO DISMISS 14 A. Standing 15 Defendant argues that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. The “case or 16 controversy” requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits this federal court’s 17 jurisdiction by requiring that plaintiffs have “standing” to bring the lawsuit. Allen v. Wright, 468 18 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). As pertinent to this case, in order to have standing, a party “‘must assert 19 his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests 20 of third parties.’” Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 129 (2004) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 21 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). “[A]t an irreducible minimum, Art. III requires the party who invokes the 22 court's authority to show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a 23 result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant, and that the injury fairly can be traced to 24 the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Valley Forge 25 Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 26 (1982) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 27 28 Here, plaintiff is asserting the rights of a third party, namely, Al Farez. He alleges that Al Farez’s contract rights were breached, and he alleges that Al Farez was defrauded during the 2 1 course of the arbitration. However, there is nothing in the complaint or its exhibits to explain 2 why plaintiff is entitled to sue for harm allegedly suffered by Al Farez. 3 An exception to the standing rule may exist if the plaintiff has a sufficiently close 4 relationship to the third party, and if there is a “hindrance” to the third party being able to assert 5 its own rights. Kowalski, 543 U.S. at 130. While the exhibits to the complaint may be read to 6 assert that plaintiff is closely aligned with Al Farez – the complaint alleges that plaintiff is the 7 “owner and corporate officer,” and the exhibits indicate that he is the “General Manager” – there 8 is no allegation in the complaint or exhibits from which the court can infer that Al Farez cannot 9 assert its own rights in court. 10 Accordingly, plaintiff has no standing to bring this lawsuit. “In the absence of standing, a 11 federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.” Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn, 716 F.3d 12 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 13 B. Other Issues 14 Defendant also argues: (1) that plaintiff is improperly attempting to have a “second bite” 15 at the ICDR arbitration, which was finally resolved against him; (2) that this lawsuit should be 16 dismissed as duplicative of the later-filed Azzawi v. Int’l Centre for Dispute Resolution 17 Organization, 1:16-cv-0548 (S.D.N.Y.);3 and (3) that the complaint fails to plead fraud with the 18 particularity required of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). 19 As discussed above, the undersigned finds that plaintiff lacks standing, and that this court 20 therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider this case. These additional grounds for dismissal therefore 21 need not be considered. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on this 24 matter, scheduled for April 20, 2016, is VACATED. 25 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29), should be GRANTED; and that 27 28 3 This action was initially filed in this court, and was transferred to the Southern District of New York. See Azzawi v. Int’l Centre for Dispute Resolution Organization, 2:16-cv-0093 KJM CKD, ECF No. 5 (E.D. Cal. January 20, 2016). 3 1 2 3 2. This action should be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based upon plaintiff’s lack of standing. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 7 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 8 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all 9 parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 10 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 11 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 12 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 DATED: April 14, 2016 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
