The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara J. Rothstein United States District Judge
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY OF NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL;GRANTING DEFENDANTS'MOTIONS TO DISMISS;
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT;
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT;
DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REQUIRE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE TO SERVE SUMMONS &COMPLAINT;DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REQUIRE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE TO SERVE TWO NEW YORK STATE DEFENDANTS AND FOR SANCTIONS ON THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE;
DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT TIME WARNER;DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SURREPLY
It is a rare event indeed when a court can resolve a truly voluminous
case in a succinct, laborsaving manner; fortunately, this case is one
in which that rare event will occur. The various Defendants*fn1
in this case have filed respective motions to dismiss,
raising similar, if not identical,
arguments. Among their arguments, Defendants assert that pro se
Plaintiff, Mr. P. Stephen Lamont, previously litigated these claims
and that they were ruled upon by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The court agrees, and dismisses
Plaintiff's sole federal claim under the doctrine of res judicata.
Accordingly, the court grants defendants' motions to dismiss.
Additionally, the court denies the following motions filed by
Plaintiff: motion to disqualify the representative capacity of the New
York State Attorney General; motion for leave to file an amended
complaint; motion to amend the motion for leave to file an amended
complaint; motion to file a surreply; motion to require the United
States Marshals Service to serve summons and complaint; motion to
require United States Marshals Service to Serve Two New York State
Defendants and for Sanctions; and motion for a preliminary injunction.
The following alleged facts are presumed true for purposes of this order. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges that in the fall of 1998, three individuals (none of whom are Plaintiff) "stumbled upon" new technologies that would allow superior digital video. Compl. ¶ 32. According to Plaintiff, these technologies allow for the "encoding and transmission of digital video across all transmission networks," allow the digital zoom feature "on all video capture devices," and, lastly, allow the remote control of video devices. Id. ¶ 5. The three inventors soon formed a company called Iviewit, of which Plaintiff is currently the Chief Executive Officer. Id.
Sometime after 2000, Iviewit presented this new technology to Time Warner, Corp. and that company began to utilize the new technologies pursuant to specific agreements. Id. ¶ 47. In the summer of 2001, however, Plaintiff alleges that Time Warner began using the technologies in unauthorized ways. Id. ¶ 49. Indeed, Plaintiff claims that Time Warner continues such unauthorized use, id. ¶ 1, and he has recently filed a preliminary injunction to halt this behavior, see generally Pl.'s Mot. for Preliminary Inj.*fn2
In 2002, Iviewit discovered that the patent applications filed on its behalf with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") were "facially defective." Id. ¶ 50. Plaintiff believes that patent attorneys from the law firms of Proskauer Rose, LLP; Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breistone, LLP; and Foley Lardner, LLP committed fraud by filing such faulty applications and, in the case of Proskauer Rose, LLP, by representing Iviewit when there was a conflict of interest with another client, MPEGLA LLC. Id. ¶ 1, 62-65. As a result, Iviewit lodged a flurry of grievance complaints against these patent attorneys with the appropriate New York state disciplinary committees and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Id. ¶¶ 50-57.
In 2011, Plaintiff commenced suit against Iviewit's prior patent lawyers and their respective law firms, the State of New York and several of its officials, past officers of Iviewit, Time Warner, and Jane and John Does and John Doe companies.*fn3 See supra n.1 ; Compl. ¶¶ 5-30. Plaintiff asserts that all of the defendants, with the sole exception of Time Warner, violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, Plaintiff invokes the court's supplemental jurisdiction to raise claims for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, breach of contract, and legal malpractice. Plaintiff demands that he is entitled to damages because he has suffered "more than twelve years of unpaid royalties on the ...