5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7
CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00755-RSL 9 Plaintiff, v. 10
11 MAHSA PARVIZ, AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Defendant.
14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Verified First Amended 15 Complaint” (Dkt. # 6) and defendant’s “Verified Rule 12 Motion, Answer, Motion for 16 Sanctions Under Rule 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Request for Protective Order Under 17 Rule 5.2(e)” (Dkt. # 8). 18 Background 19 In March 2022, plaintiff created a website about his ex-girlfriend, defendant Mahsa 20 Parviz. Plaintiff uses the page to explain how he was duped by Ms. Parviz, asserting that 21 she lied to him about her resume and criminal history and that, despite their break up, she 22 continues to contact him. His avowed purposes in creating the website were to shame 23 and/or expose defendant. In May 2023, Ms. Parviz contacted plaintiff, requesting that he 24 remove the webpage or face a domestic violence complaint filed in the city where he 25 practices law. Plaintiff immediately filed this lawsuit, essentially copying the contents of 26 AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 1 the website into a complaint seeking an award of damages (special, general, and punitive), 2 an award of attorney’s fees, and a declaration that Ms. Parviz is a vexatious litigant. The 3 Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of 4 subject matter jurisdiction: plaintiff’s allegation regarding the amount in controversy was 5 wholly conclusory and unsupported by any factual allegations. Plaintiff then filed an 6 amended complaint adding a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) and seeking an 7 injunction against “threated violations of the computer fraud law.” Dkt. # 6 at 21. 8 Ms. Parviz, who is currently in custody at the Federal Detention Center SeaTac, 9 generally denies the allegations of plaintiff’s amended complaint and has asserted various 10 affirmative defenses to his claims. Dkt. # 8 at 2. 11 Rule 12 Motion 12 Ms. Parviz seeks dismissal of the above-captioned lawsuit for lack of subject matter 13 jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, insufficient service, failure 14 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and failure to join an indispensable party. 15 Dkt. # 8 at 1-2. Plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s Rule 12 motion. Having 16 reviewed the amended complaint and defendant’s motion, the Court finds that the newly- 17 added Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim has not been adequately pled and that “the 18 values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” lead to the conclusion that 19 the Court “should decline the exercise of jurisdiction [over related state claims] by 20 dismissing the case without prejudice.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 21 350 (1988) (citation omitted). 22 Plaintiff accuses Ms. Parviz of attempting to extort him into deleting his web page 23 and restoring her Harvard University web pages, thereby “interfering with the integrity of 24 information available on a protected computer” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) and 25 of hacking or exceeding the authorized use of the Harvard servers to create a false 26 impression that allowed her to defraud plaintiff in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4). Dkt. AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2 1 # 6 at 19-20. Section 1030(a)(7) prohibits a person from extorting money or a thing of 2 value using threats of damage to a protected computer or threats of improper access to a 3 protected computer. There is no allegation that Ms. Parviz did anything of the sort. 4 According to plaintiff and the documents attached to the amended complaint, Ms. Parviz 5 left it entirely up to plaintiff to make changes to the various websites. Any threats made or 6 implied did not involve damage to a computer or unauthorized access to information. With 7 regards to § 1030(a)(4), there are no facts suggesting that Ms. Parviz hacked into or 8 exceeded her authorized access when utilizing a Harvard email address, creating a Harvard 9 Scholar website, or being listed on a med.harvard.edu website. Plaintiff acknowledges that 10 Ms. Parviz was enrolled in Harvard Extension School at some point prior to 2017. While 11 plaintiff blames the “Harvard persona” he found on-line for his decision to date and trust 12 Ms. Parviz, the memorialization of her connection to Harvard on various website and 13 platforms does not raise a plausible inference that Ms. Parviz broke into Harvard’s system 14 or exceeded the authorizations she was given as an extension student. 15 Plaintiff has failed to allege facts which could support the only federal cause of 16 action asserted in the amended complaint. In the absence of a federal claim or any factors 17 compelling the Court to deviate from the common practice of declining supplemental 18 jurisdiction when no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 19 jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff is again directed to show cause why 20 this case should not be dismissed. 21 Sanctions 22 Ms. Parviz provides a letter plaintiff sent her in August 2021 expressing his 23 opinion that she was not competent to stand trial on a federal felony charge (Dkt. # 9 at 2) 24 and argues that plaintiff should be sanctioned for (a) filing a lawsuit against an 25 incompetent person and (b) filing frivolous claims in bad faith and for an improper 26 purpose. There is no evidence that defendant is incompetent: plaintiff’s opinion does not AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3 1 make it so, and defendant has not conceded the point. Nor has defendant shown that she 2 has satisfied the procedural requirements for seeking sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 11(c)(2). While it certainly appears that plaintiff is using the federal court system to pursue 4 a personal vendetta against Ms. Parviz rather than to obtain relief for any legally 5 cognizable harm, whether he has unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings 6 for purposes of an award of fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 will best be determined 7 after plaintiff responds to this second order to show cause. See Caruso v. Wash. State Bar 8 Ass’n, 2017 WL 2256782, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2017) (quoting W. Coast Theater 9 Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1528 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding that fees are 10 appropriate under § 1927 if “an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous 11 argument, or argues a [ ] claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent, which qualifies 12 as bad faith”). 13 Protective Order 14 Ms. Parviz requests that the Court enter a protective order sealing the entire case 15 file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e) and prohibiting plaintiff from disclosing confidential 16 materials and information. It is defendant, however, who chose to file documents that she 17 now argues (a) are protected from disclosure by California law and a protective order in 18 another case or (b) may put her in danger. Those exhibits have been sealed. See Dkt. # 9. 19 Defendant has not shown good cause for any further protections other than those afforded 20 by Fed. R.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7
CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00755-RSL 9 Plaintiff, v. 10
11 MAHSA PARVIZ, AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 Defendant.
14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Verified First Amended 15 Complaint” (Dkt. # 6) and defendant’s “Verified Rule 12 Motion, Answer, Motion for 16 Sanctions Under Rule 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Request for Protective Order Under 17 Rule 5.2(e)” (Dkt. # 8). 18 Background 19 In March 2022, plaintiff created a website about his ex-girlfriend, defendant Mahsa 20 Parviz. Plaintiff uses the page to explain how he was duped by Ms. Parviz, asserting that 21 she lied to him about her resume and criminal history and that, despite their break up, she 22 continues to contact him. His avowed purposes in creating the website were to shame 23 and/or expose defendant. In May 2023, Ms. Parviz contacted plaintiff, requesting that he 24 remove the webpage or face a domestic violence complaint filed in the city where he 25 practices law. Plaintiff immediately filed this lawsuit, essentially copying the contents of 26 AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 1 the website into a complaint seeking an award of damages (special, general, and punitive), 2 an award of attorney’s fees, and a declaration that Ms. Parviz is a vexatious litigant. The 3 Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of 4 subject matter jurisdiction: plaintiff’s allegation regarding the amount in controversy was 5 wholly conclusory and unsupported by any factual allegations. Plaintiff then filed an 6 amended complaint adding a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) and seeking an 7 injunction against “threated violations of the computer fraud law.” Dkt. # 6 at 21. 8 Ms. Parviz, who is currently in custody at the Federal Detention Center SeaTac, 9 generally denies the allegations of plaintiff’s amended complaint and has asserted various 10 affirmative defenses to his claims. Dkt. # 8 at 2. 11 Rule 12 Motion 12 Ms. Parviz seeks dismissal of the above-captioned lawsuit for lack of subject matter 13 jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, insufficient service, failure 14 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and failure to join an indispensable party. 15 Dkt. # 8 at 1-2. Plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s Rule 12 motion. Having 16 reviewed the amended complaint and defendant’s motion, the Court finds that the newly- 17 added Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim has not been adequately pled and that “the 18 values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” lead to the conclusion that 19 the Court “should decline the exercise of jurisdiction [over related state claims] by 20 dismissing the case without prejudice.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 21 350 (1988) (citation omitted). 22 Plaintiff accuses Ms. Parviz of attempting to extort him into deleting his web page 23 and restoring her Harvard University web pages, thereby “interfering with the integrity of 24 information available on a protected computer” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) and 25 of hacking or exceeding the authorized use of the Harvard servers to create a false 26 impression that allowed her to defraud plaintiff in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4). Dkt. AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2 1 # 6 at 19-20. Section 1030(a)(7) prohibits a person from extorting money or a thing of 2 value using threats of damage to a protected computer or threats of improper access to a 3 protected computer. There is no allegation that Ms. Parviz did anything of the sort. 4 According to plaintiff and the documents attached to the amended complaint, Ms. Parviz 5 left it entirely up to plaintiff to make changes to the various websites. Any threats made or 6 implied did not involve damage to a computer or unauthorized access to information. With 7 regards to § 1030(a)(4), there are no facts suggesting that Ms. Parviz hacked into or 8 exceeded her authorized access when utilizing a Harvard email address, creating a Harvard 9 Scholar website, or being listed on a med.harvard.edu website. Plaintiff acknowledges that 10 Ms. Parviz was enrolled in Harvard Extension School at some point prior to 2017. While 11 plaintiff blames the “Harvard persona” he found on-line for his decision to date and trust 12 Ms. Parviz, the memorialization of her connection to Harvard on various website and 13 platforms does not raise a plausible inference that Ms. Parviz broke into Harvard’s system 14 or exceeded the authorizations she was given as an extension student. 15 Plaintiff has failed to allege facts which could support the only federal cause of 16 action asserted in the amended complaint. In the absence of a federal claim or any factors 17 compelling the Court to deviate from the common practice of declining supplemental 18 jurisdiction when no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 19 jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff is again directed to show cause why 20 this case should not be dismissed. 21 Sanctions 22 Ms. Parviz provides a letter plaintiff sent her in August 2021 expressing his 23 opinion that she was not competent to stand trial on a federal felony charge (Dkt. # 9 at 2) 24 and argues that plaintiff should be sanctioned for (a) filing a lawsuit against an 25 incompetent person and (b) filing frivolous claims in bad faith and for an improper 26 purpose. There is no evidence that defendant is incompetent: plaintiff’s opinion does not AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3 1 make it so, and defendant has not conceded the point. Nor has defendant shown that she 2 has satisfied the procedural requirements for seeking sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 11(c)(2). While it certainly appears that plaintiff is using the federal court system to pursue 4 a personal vendetta against Ms. Parviz rather than to obtain relief for any legally 5 cognizable harm, whether he has unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings 6 for purposes of an award of fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 will best be determined 7 after plaintiff responds to this second order to show cause. See Caruso v. Wash. State Bar 8 Ass’n, 2017 WL 2256782, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2017) (quoting W. Coast Theater 9 Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1528 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding that fees are 10 appropriate under § 1927 if “an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous 11 argument, or argues a [ ] claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent, which qualifies 12 as bad faith”). 13 Protective Order 14 Ms. Parviz requests that the Court enter a protective order sealing the entire case 15 file under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e) and prohibiting plaintiff from disclosing confidential 16 materials and information. It is defendant, however, who chose to file documents that she 17 now argues (a) are protected from disclosure by California law and a protective order in 18 another case or (b) may put her in danger. Those exhibits have been sealed. See Dkt. # 9. 19 Defendant has not shown good cause for any further protections other than those afforded 20 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). 21
22 For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) 23 is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim has not been 24 adequately alleged. In the absence of a federal claim, the balance of the relevant factors 25 points toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law 26 claims. Plaintiff is again ordered to show cause why the above-captioned matter should not AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4 1 be dismissed. Plaintiff’s response shall be filed on or before July 28, 2023. The Clerk of 2 Court is directed to note this order to show cause on the Court’s calendar for that date. 3 Defendant’s motion for sanctions is DENIED on the current record without prejudice to its 4 being renewed in the future. 5
6 Dated this 17th day of July, 2023.
7 8 Robert S. Lasnik 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AMENDED SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 5