Kleidman

Kleidman v. Murphy

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 20234:22-cv-06355California5,772 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PETER KLEIDMAN, Case No. 22-cv-06355-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND MOTION TO DEEM

v. PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

AND DENYING MOTION FOR

BERNIE MURPHY, et al., SANCTIONS Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 60, 69, 101

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff Peter Kleidman’s (“Plaintiff” or “Kleidman”) complaint, motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and motion for sanctions. Dkt. Nos. 57, 60, 69, 101. The Court finds these matters appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matters are deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss and motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and DENIES the motion for sanctions. I. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE In Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, the Ninth Circuit addressed the judicial notice rule and …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.