Brar v. Microsoft Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Tanbeer Singh Brar’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and denies his motion for protection of rights. On screening, the court finds that the complaint does not plausibly establish diversity jurisdiction or state cognizable constitutional, contract, or warranty claims against Microsoft Corporation. The court grants Plaintiff 21 days to file a first amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, so the complaint did not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction.
2. The complaint did not state a cognizable First Amendment claim because it did not plausibly allege that Microsoft acted under color of state law or that its conduct was fairly attributable to the state.
3. The complaint did not state a cognizable Fifth Amendment claim because it did not allege that Microsoft was a federal government actor.
4. The complaint failed to state a claim because it was unclear, did not identify discrete claims or causes of action, and did not provide sufficient factual allegations supporting a cognizable legal theory.
5. The motion for protection of rights was denied because its request was unclear and plaintiff offered no comprehensible reasoning or supporting citations for a hearing or for restricting the court's issuance of orders and recommendations.
6. Plaintiff was granted 21 days to file a first amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies or to voluntarily dismiss the action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established diversity jurisdiction by plausibly alleging an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
2. Whether the complaint stated cognizable First Amendment or Fifth Amendment claims against Microsoft Corporation.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, or breach of contract claims.
4. Whether plaintiff's motion for protection of rights warranted a hearing or an order restricting the court's issuance of orders and recommendations.
5. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the deficient complaint.

Disposition

other