Talasazan v. Microsoft Corporation et al
| Harel Talasazan |
| Microsoft Corporation, Office of Bar Counsel, Board of Bar Overseers, Dorothy Anderson, Does 1-10 and Matthew Stewart |
| 1:2022cv11764 |
| October 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Denise J Casper |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 12 U.S.C. § 3410 Right to Financial Privacy Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 83 Letter from Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 82 Letter from Harel Talasazan. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 81 Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 80 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #64 Motion Objection and MOTION to Permit Filing of Opposition to Motion for Protective Order After Date of Entry of Order by Harel Talasazan; #71 Motion to Take Judicial Notice; #73 Motion to Take Judicial Notice. Plaintiff's objection and motion to permit opposition to the motion for protective order, D. 64 is DENIED as moot in light of the Court's ruling on D. 46. Plaintiff's motions for judicial notice are DENIED as moot in light of the rulings on D. 39, 44 and 55. (Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 79 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #58 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff Mr. Talasazan has moved for an order imposing sanctions against the State Defendants (and their counsel) for allegedly failing "to preserve electronically stored information and for spoliation of evidence." D. 58 at 1. Having considered the merits of Plaintiff's motion papers and given the Court's allowance of the State Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court DENIES this motion. (Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 78 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #39 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; #44 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; #44 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; #46 Motion for Protective Order; #55 Motion for TRO; #55 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; #56 Motion to Amend.Plaintiff Harel Talasazan ("Talasazan") filed this lawsuit pro se against Defendants Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and the Massachusetts Office of Bar Counsel ("OBC"), the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers ("BBO"), Dorothy Anderson ("Anderson") and Matthew Stewart ("Stewart") (collectively, the "State Defendants") asserting claims under Articles III and IV and the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution (Counts I, II, III, IV), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Count V) and 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. under 1988 (Counts VI, VII and VIII). D. 6. Microsoft, D. 39, and the State Defendants, D. 44, have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The State Defendants have also moved for a protective order quashing Talasazan's request for production of documents. D. 46. Talasazan moved for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. D. 55. Talasazan also moved to amend his opposition to the motion to dismiss of the State Defendants, D. 56, which the Court ALLOWS nunc pro tunc, and has considered D. 56-1 in the resolution of that motion to dismiss. Having considered the motion papers and various oppositions and for the reasons stated below, the Court ALLOWS Microsoft's motion to dismiss, D. 39, ALLOWS the State Defendants' motion to dismiss, D. 44, DENIES as moot the State Defendants' motion for protective order, D. 46, and DENIES Talasazan's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. D. 55.The Court accepts the allegations in the amended complaint as true for the purposes of resolving the pending motions to dismiss. Talasazan, a Massachusetts attorney, is permanently and totally deaf in his left ear because of a traumatic head injury he sustained on or about May 12, 2007. D. 6 1516. On or about August 8, 2018, he moved with his wife from Boston to Los Angeles. Id. 17. On or about August 5, 2021, Talasazan was notified that the OBC was formally investigating his physical and mental fitness to be an attorney and certain incidents of alleged misconduct. Id. 23, 35. On September 23, 2021, Anderson and Stewart deposed Talasazan via video conferencing using Microsoft Teams. Id. 25. Talasazan viewed the video recording of the remote deposition shortly after receiving it and "immediately noticed that the video had been cut out or trimmed such that the portion of the time during the deposition involving" certain objections Talasazan made, "among other things, were removed from the video." Id. 68.On or about December 7, 2021, the OBC subpoenaed Talasazan's bank records which, by later agreement, was limited to his IOLTA records. Id. 6164. On or about May 5, 2022, Anderson subpoenaed Talasazan's business checking account records. Id. 74. On June 13, 2022, Talasazan was again invited to participate in a remote deposition via Microsoft Teams with Anderson and Stewart, scheduled for July 7, 2022. Id. 80. On June 30, 2022, Talasazan requested reasonable accommodations from Anderson for the July 7 deposition, but Talasazan did not receive a response regarding this request. Id. 84. Anderson canceled the July 7 remote deposition on July 5, 2022. Id. 85. On September 26, 2022, Talasazan received a petition for discipline against him from the OBC. Id. 86.Talasazan Fails to State a Claim for Relief Against Microsoft. Although Talasazan brings each of his eight claims against every named Defendant, the complaint contains no allegations that implicate Microsoft in a legally cognizable way. Microsoft's only factual connection to Talasazan's claims appears to be that the State Defendants used the Microsoft Teams platform to conduct his remote deposition. This fact is insufficient to state a claim for relief against Microsoft because it does not give rise to a "reasonable inference that [Microsoft] is liable for the misconduct alleged." Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); Garca-Cataln v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2013) (noting that a complaint must provide sufficient factual allegations for a court to find the claim "plausible on its face" to state a claim for relief) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).In his opposition, Talasazan claims that he is entitled to relief under an Agreement for Professional Services ("the Agreement") between the State Defendants and Microsoft. D. 6-3. Talasazan argues that he can recover from Microsoft for the State Defendants' alleged misconduct because Microsoft is obligated to indemnify the State Defendants against third party claims under the Agreement. D. 70 at 1114. This argument fails for at least two reasons. As a preliminary matter, the Agreement expired on June 30, 2021. D. 6-3 at 8. The remote deposition occurred on September 23, 2021, so the State Defendants' alleged misconduct, insofar as it relates to the use of Microsoft Teams, occurred after the Agreement expired. Even assuming arguendo that the Agreement was still in force by the time of the remote deposition, Talasazan would not have standing to enforce it. The Agreement is governed by Massachusetts law, D. 6-3 at 14 (stating "[t]his Agreement will be governed by the laws of Customer's state..."). It is well established that "[u]nder Massachusetts law, only intended beneficiaries, not incidental beneficiaries, can enforce a contract." Harvard L. Sch. Coal. for C.R. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 413 Mass. 66, 71 (1992). Talasazan must point to "clear and definite" evidence that the contracting parties intended him both to benefit from and possess the right to enforce the indemnity provision. Landry v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 485 Mass. 334, 342 (2020) (citation omitted). Here, there is no evidence that the parties intended Talasazan to benefit from and possess the right to enforce the indemnity provision of the Agreement. The indemnity provision of the Agreement states, in relevant part, that "Microsoft will defend against any third-party claim, and will indemnify and hold harmless [the Commonwealth of Massachusetts] for any damages finally adjudicated or amounts provided in an approved settlement, and arising from such claim, to the extent it (I) alleges that any Fix or Services Deliverable made available by Microsoft for a fee and used within the scope of Section 3 of this Agreement... misappropriates a trade secret or directly infringes a patent, copyright, or trademark or other proprietary right of a third party, or (II) results from personal injury damages or tangible property damages." D. 6-3 at 12. Talasazan has not brought such claims and such indemnification is not applicable here. For all of these reasons, the Court allows Microsoft's motion to dismiss.Talasazan Fails to State a Claim for Relief Against the State Defendants. The State Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint on the basis of, among other things, the Younger abstention doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Younger requires that federal courts not intervene in "ongoing, originally state-initiated civil or even administrative proceedings that satisfy three conditions: (1) the proceedings are judicial (as opposed to legislative) in nature; (2) they implicate important state interests; and (3) they provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal constitutional challenges." Johnson v. Bd. of Bar Overseers of Mass., 324 F. Supp. 2d 276, 282 (D. Mass. 2004) (emphasis in original) (quoting Bettencourt v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 904 F.2d 772, 777 (1st Cir. 1990)). Here, all three elements of the Younger doctrine are met. First, Talasazan's claims relate to Massachusetts' attorney discipline procedure, which are "judicial in nature." Id. at 283 (quoting Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 433 (1982)). Second, Massachusetts has an "extremely important interest in maintaining and assuring the professional conduct of the attorneys it licenses." Id. (quoting Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 434). Finally, Talasazan will have the opportunity to raise his constitutional claims in the courts of the Commonwealth because "Massachusetts law expressly guarantees to any aggrieved party the right of judicial review of administrative decisions." Id. at 283284 (citing Mass. Gen. L. c. 30A, 14(7)); see Bd. of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 695 F. Supp. 1321, 1323 (D. Mass. 1988) (noting that "it cannot be doubted that the courts of the Commonwealth... will give federal constitutional issues... the closest scrutiny")."Nonetheless, even where, as here, all three requirements of Younger are satisfied, 'a federal court may nonetheless intervene to halt [ ] an ongoing state judicial proceeding if the plaintiff demonstrates bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance.'" Johnson, 324 F. Supp. 2d at 284 (quoting Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme Court, 80 F.3d 633, 639 (1st Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "To invoke the 'bias' exception to the Younger abstention doctrine, Brooks first requires a plaintiff to seek to recuse allegedly biased judges in the state proceeding." Id. (quoting Brooks, 80 F.3d at 640). "Second, [Talasazan] must offer 'some evidence that abstention will jeopardize [his] due process right to an impartial adjudication.'" Id. (quoting Brooks, 80 F.3d at 640). Talasazan argues that he will not be afforded an adequate opportunity to be heard should this case be dismissed. D. 69 at 5. The complaint does not, however, allege that Talasazan has sought the recusal of any state officials in his disciplinary proceedings. Cf. Johnson, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 284 (concluding that Massachusetts attorney subject to disciplinary charges who "sought recusal of the Special Hearing Officer, the Board Chair, and Bar Counsel" satisfied first element of the bias except |
| Filing 77 Letter re: Certified Property Records, Town Clerk of Witingham of the State of Vermont from Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 76 Notice - Warranty Deed (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 75 Letter/request (non-motion) from Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 74 Letter from Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 73 MOTION requesting Judicial Notice be Taken in support of Granting Plaintiff Temporary Restraining Order, Injunctive Relief, and Sanctions by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 72 NOTICE of Change of Address by Harel Talasazan (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 71 MOTION to Take Judicial Notice in Support of Granting Plaintiff Temporary Restraining Order, Injuctive Relief, and Sanctions by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5) (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 70 Opposition and Memorandum of Reasons and Authorities in Support of Opposition re #39 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Harel Talasazan in Support of Opposition to Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 69 Opposition and Memorandum of Reasons and Authorities in Support of Opposition re #44 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter with Attachments)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 68 NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 by Harel Talasazan (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 67 Opposition re #55 MOTION for Temporary Restraining OrderMOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Matthew Stewart. (Marks, David) |
| Filing 66 Objection and Taking Exception Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.83 by Harel Talasazan. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 65 Letter re: Proposed Amendments to Local Rule 67.3 Disbursement of Registry Funds from Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Amendments to Local Rule 67.3, #2 Cover Letter, #3 Envelope)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 64 Objection and MOTION to Permit Filing of Opposition to Motion for Protective Order After Date of Entry of Order by Harel Talasazan.(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 63 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #53 Motion for Leave to Amend Opposition to State Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Harel Talasazan.Plaintiff's motion to amend his opposition to the state Defendants' motion to dismiss, D. 39 is ALLOWED and the Court will consider D. 53 in the resolution of D. 39.(Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 62 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #49 Motion Objection to Docket Sheet Instruction and MOTION for Orderly Sequences Ruling and Corrected Docket Sheet filed by Harel Talasazan. Plaintiff's objection to the docket sheet and for other relief regarding same is DENIED. (Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 61 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #42 Motion to Convert Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for its Failure to State a Claim into a Motion for Summary Judgment. Having considered Plaintiff Mr. Talasazan's motion to "convert" Defendant Microsoft's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, and having considered the opposition to same, D. 51, the Court DENIES that motion. In light of this ruling, the Court gives Plaintiff until May 5, 2023 to file an opposition to D. 39, Microsoft's motion to dismiss. Failure to do so by this time will likely result in dismissal of the claims against this defendant.(Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 60 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #54 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #46 MOTION for Protective Order , Responses due by 4/21/2023 (Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 59 MEMORANDUM in Support re #58 MOTION for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence filed by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 58 MOTION for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Declaration in Support, #2 Cover Letter)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 57 Opposition and Memorandum of Reasons and Authorities in Support of Opposition to State Defendants Motion to Dismiss re #44 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Duplicate Opposition and Memorandum of Reasons and Authorities in Support of Opposition to State Defendants Motion to Dismiss)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 56 MOTION to Amend the Opposition and Memorandum of Reasons and Authorities in Support of Opposition to State Defendants Motion to Dismiss and the Affidavit in Support of Opposition to State Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Opposition and Memorandum of Reasons and Authorities in Support of Opposition to State Defendants Motion to Dismiss, #2 Duplicate of Motion to Amend, #3 Duplicate Proposed Opposition and Memorandum of Reasons and Authorities in Support of Opposition to State Defendants Motion to Dismiss)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 55 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ( Responses due by 5/1/2023) by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Declaration of Harel Talasazan in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief, #4 Proposed Amended Declaration of Harel Talasazan, #5 Duplicate of Emergency Motion, #6 Duplicate Exhibit 1, #7 Duplicate of Text of Proposed Order, #8 Duplicate Declaration of Harel Talasazan in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief, #9 Duplicate Proposed Amended Declaration of Harel Talasazan, #10 Cover Letter, #11 Email Attachment, #12 USPS Attachment, #13 Public Notice Attachment)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 54 MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose #46 MOTION for Protective Order by Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, and Matthew Stewart by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 53 MOTION for Leave to Amend Opposition to State Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 52 Opposition re #44 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28, #29 Exhibit 29, #30 Exhibit 30, #31 Exhibit 31, #32 Exhibit 32, #33 Exhibit 33, #34 Exhibit 34, #35 Exhibit 35, #36 Exhibit 36, #37 Exhibit 37, #38 Exhibit 38, #39 Exhibit 39, #40 Exhibit 40, #41 Exhibit 41, #42 Exhibit 42, #43 Exhibit 43, #44 Exhibit 44, #45 Exhibit 45, #46 Exhibit 46, #47 Exhibit 47, #48 Exhibit 48, #49 Exhibit 49, #50 Exhibit 50, #51 Exhibit 51, #52 Exhibit 52, #53 Exhibit 53) (Currie, Haley). |
| Filing 51 Opposition re #42 MOTION to convert Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for its Failure to State a Claim into a Motion for Summary Judgment or to Strike the Affidavit of Paul B. Lewis or to Enlarge Time to File Opposition to Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Microsoft Corporation. (Lewis, Paul) |
| Filing 50 MEMORANDUM in Support re #49 Plaintiff's Objection to Docket Sheet Instruction and MOTION for Orderly Sequences Ruling and Corrected Docket Sheet filed by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Gmail Attachment)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 49 Plaintiff's Objection to Docket Sheet Instruction and MOTION for Orderly Sequences Ruling and Corrected Docket Sheet filed by Harel Talasazan. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 48 ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL re #46 MOTION for Protective Order : Pursuant to the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Section (G) Number (4): Any memorandum of law or other attachment filed in support of a main document shall be filed as a separate document. For future filings, please make sure all memorandums in support and accompanying exhibits are filed correctly in their own separate entry using the correct event. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 47 MEMORANDUM in Support re #46 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Matthew Stewart. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Currie, Haley) Modified on 3/22/2023 to remove defendant inadvertently added (Currie, Haley). |
| Filing 46 MOTION for Protective Order by Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Matthew Stewart.(Marks, David) (Currie, Haley). Modified on 3/17/2023 : main document and memorandum and exhibit separated from entry and refiled. Please see #47 for correct filing (Currie, Haley). |
| Filing 45 MEMORANDUM in Support re #44 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Matthew Stewart. (Marks, David) |
| Filing 44 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ( Responses due by 3/27/2023) by Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Matthew Stewart.(Marks, David) |
| Filing 43 MEMORANDUM in Support re #42 MOTION to Convert Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for its Failure to State a Claim into a Motion for Summary Judgment or to Strike the Affidavit of Paul B. Lewis or filed by Harel Talasazan. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 42 MOTION to Convert Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for its Failure to State a Claim into a Motion for Summary Judgment or to Strike the Affidavit of Paul B. Lewis or to Enlarge Time to File Opposition to Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim by Harel Talasazan.(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 41 MEMORANDUM in Support re #39 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Microsoft Corporation. (Lewis, Paul) |
| Filing 40 AFFIDAVIT in Support re #39 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Lewis, Paul) |
| Filing 39 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Microsoft Corporation.(Lewis, Paul) |
| Filing 38 Letter from Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Envelope, #2 Contents in envelope, #3 Letter attached to envelope)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 37 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In response to Plaintiff Harel Talasazan's most recent letter, D. 36, and his inquiries of the Clerk's Office, the Court notes the following. By D. 31, dated February 9, 2023, the Court allowed Defendants' motion for extension to answer or respond to the complaint and gave Defendants until March 13, 2023 to do so. A copy of this ECF order, D. 31 and the others issued that day, D. 32-33, were mailed to Plaintiff on February 9, 2023. To the extent that Plaintiff was seeking subpoenas for discovery, the Court STAYS any such discovery until after either of the following: the Defendants file an answer and then the Court holds an initial scheduling conference; or, if Defendants file a responsive motion, then until after the Court holds a hearing regarding same.(Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 36 Letter from Harel Talasazan. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 35 Plaintiff's Response to the Petition for Discipline from Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1, #2 Attachment 2, #3 Attachment 3)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 34 Letter/request (non-motion) from Harel Talasazan. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 33 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re #30 Request for notice of default filed by Harel Talasazan. The motion for default is DENIED in light of the Court's ruling on D. 24.(Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 32 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #28 Motion to Supplement. Motion to supplement is DENIED as moot in light of the ruling on D. 24. (Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 31 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: #24 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Having considered Defendants' motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, D. 24, and Plaintiff's opposition to same, D. 27-28, the Court ALLOWS the motion and Defendants have until March 13, 2023 to answer or otherwise respond. (Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 30 Request for notice of default of Defendants Office of Bar Counsel and Board of Bar Overseers (Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)) by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Cover Letter)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 29 NOTICE of Change of Address by Harel Talasazan (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 28 MOTION to Supplement Exhibit 5 of The Plaintiff's Memorandum of Reasons and Authorities in Support of Objection to the Mailing of the First Amended Complaint and Opposition to the Defendant's Joint Motion to Enlarge Time to File Responsive Pleading by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 5.1, #2 Exhibit 5.2, (3) Exhibit 5.3, #4 Cover Letter)(Modified 2/10 to separate exhibits into their own attachments)(Currie, Haley). |
| Filing 27 MEMORANDUM of Reasons and Authorities in Support by Harel Talasazan to #26 Plaintiff's Objection to the mailing of the Amended Complaint and Opposition re 24 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to March 13, 2023 to File Answer re 6 Amended Complaint (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Cover Letter)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 26 Plaintiff's Objection to the mailing of the Amended Complaint and Opposition re #24 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to March 13, 2023 to File Answer re #6 Amended Complaint,, filed by Harel Talasazan. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 25 Letter to Mr. Lewis from Harel Talasazan. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 24 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to March 13, 2023 to File Answer re #6 Amended Complaint,, by Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Microsoft Corporation, Office of Bar Counsel, Matthew Stewart. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Affidavit)(Marks, David) |
| Filing 23 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Microsoft Corporation. (Lewis, Paul) |
| Filing 22 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul B. Lewis on behalf of Microsoft Corporation (Lewis, Paul) |
| Filing 21 NOTICE of Appearance by David R. Marks on behalf of Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Matthew Stewart (Marks, David) |
| Filing 20 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to The Office of the Attorney General by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 19 SUMMONS Returned Executed Board of Bar Overseers served on 1/9/2023, answer due 1/30/2023. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter)(Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 18 SUMMONS Returned Executed Office of Bar Counsel served on 1/9/2023, answer due 1/30/2023. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 17 SUMMONS Returned Executed Dorothy Anderson served on 1/9/2023, answer due 1/30/2023. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 16 SUMMONS Returned Executed Microsoft Corporation served on 1/9/2023, answer due 1/30/2023. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 15 Note from Harel Talasazan with entirety of case in paper that was mailed to plaintiff on 12/9/2022. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE (corrections) by Harel Talasazan re #11 Notice (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 13 Summons Reissued as to All Defendants. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 12 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion "Plaintiff Harel Talasazans Ex-Parte Motion for Clerk to Reissue Summonses, D. 8, is ALLOWED in part only to the extent that summonses shall reissue as to the named defendants: Microsoft Corporation, Office of Bar Counsel, Board of Bar Overseers, Dorothy Anderson, and Matthew Stewart. Talasazan shall have ninety days from the reissuance of summonses to serve these defendants. Summonses are issued in blank and are completed by Talasazan. The Clerk is directed to mail five summonses to Talasazan. Summonses as to "Doe" Defendants are vacated and no summonses shall issue as to those defendants unless and until they are identified, and if permitted to be joined in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(2). All other and further relief is DENIED. While Talasazan is proceeding pro se, he is also a licensed attorney in Massachusetts. He is therefore presumed to have a basic knowledge of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 4, and even though proceeding pro se, must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. See Local Rule 83.5.5(d) ( A pro se party is required to comply with these local rules.). Talasazan is directed to Rule 4, which relates to service of process: the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). Service of process under Rule 4 is not performed electronically and it is not undertaken by the Clerk. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Specifically, service on an individual is referenced in Rule 4(e), and state government at Rule 4(j)(2). The Court observes that these provisions provide that service may be accomplished under State law provisions as well. See id. A review of the docket indicates that, while summonses have issued as to the named defendants previously, see D. 3, 5, there is no indication on the docket that any defendant has been properly served, and none have appeared in this action. While the Court can point Talasazan to the Federal Rules, it is ultimately Talasazans responsibility to serve the defendants in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and Local Rule 4.1." (PSSA, 5) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE by Harel Talasazan (Currie, Haley) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Inability to Electronic Service of Complaint, Return of Summonses by Harel Talasazan (Dore, Samantha) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/8/2022: #1 Amended Complaint) (Dore, Samantha). |
| Filing 10 Letter/request (non-motion) from Harel Talasazan. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Does 1-25, Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Matthew Stewart, Microsoft Corporation, Dorothy Anderson, filed by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4 - Part 1, #5 Exhibit 4 - Part 2, #6 Exhibit 4 - Part 3, #7 Exhibit 4 - Part 4, #8 Exhibit 5 - Part 1, #9 Exhibit 5 - Part 2, #10 Exhibit 6, #11 Exhibit 7, #12 Exhibit 8, #13 Exhibit 9, #14 Exhibit 10, #15 Exhibit 11, #16 Exhibit 12 - Part 1, #17 Exhibit 12 - Part 2, #18 Exhibit 13, #19 Exhibit 14)(Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Matthew Stewart. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Paine, Matthew) |
| Filing 4 Filing fee/payment: $ 402.00, receipt number 100000673 for #1 Complaint (Phillips, Sophie) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Dorothy Anderson, Board of Bar Overseers, Does 1-10, Microsoft Corporation, Office of Bar Counsel. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (de Oliveira, Flaviana) |
| Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Denise J. Casper assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Harel Talasazan. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet & Category Form, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6)(de Oliveira, Flaviana) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
