From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Solomon v. Texas Instruments, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Jan 10, 2007
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-11307-RGS (D. Mass. Jan. 10, 2007)

Summary

noting that "because this is the third time that Texas Instruments has been forced to defend itself in this court against the same meritless claims, Dennis Solomon is hereby ENJOINED from filing any further Complaints regarding the same or related subject matter without prior leave of court"

Summary of this case from Solomon v. Khoury

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-11307-RGS.

January 10, 2007


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS


On July 28, 2006, Dennis Solomon, a self-described scientist, inventor, and investigative journalist, filed this Complaint against Texas Instruments, Inc., and forty-one other defendants, including Productivity Systems, Inc. (PSI), alleging that they, together with various companies, universities, and persons named and unnamed, had hatched a long-running plot to damage and destroy his business and reputation. The conspiracy, which traces its origins to senior officials in the Nixon administration, has had its hand in a plethora of nefarious deeds, among them murder, assassination, skullduggery, and base intrigue. It is peopled with a colorful cast of prominent personalities that includes judges, professors, public officials, organized crime figures, spies, and international terrorists.

It is unclear from a reading of the Complaint whether the larger conspiracy picture is offered for background purposes or is included as support for the claims set out in the Complaint. For instance, ¶ 8, which is listed under the heading of "Extraordinary Matter[s] of Concern" makes the following allegations against the defendant Robert Lawless, but does not explain how they relate to any specific cause of action.

In 1995, when Solomon was represented by Defendant Robert Lawless, a relation of Solomon's, Regine Choukroun, the famous French singer, restaurateur and Resistance operative of WWII, was arrested in Boston when an "incident" aboard an American Airlines Non-Stop Paris — Miami flight resulted in its "emergency" diversion. Lawless explicitly told Solomon that it was a "set-up" by McManus to obtain the address book and other personal information from Regine to probe the organization — nominally known as "The Ten Million" — a historic, extra-governmental alliance of anti-fascists which is alleged to include Nobel Laureates, Prime Ministers, Generals, Leaders of Industry, Judges and many others of all walks of life. This act was likely seen as a prelude to the murder of their members — and they likely have taken appropriate steps.

On December 18, 2006, Texas Instruments filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that its allegations are barred by res judicata, as they virtually replicate the allegations contained in two previous Complaints filed by Solomon in this court, both of which resulted in judgments for Texas Instruments.See Solomon v. Texas Instruments, et al., 97-11817-GAO, andSolomon v. Texas Instruments, et al., 04-12499-WGY. Texas Instruments also argues that the Complaint fails to satisfy the minimum requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1) that averments be "simple, concise, and direct," or the requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9 that averments of fraud be stated with particularity. Finally, Texas Instruments argues that many of Solomon's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Solomon's 1997 Complaint was dismissed on the merits. The dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Solomon's 2004 Complaint was dismissed on March 28, 2005, for failure to prosecute. His appeal was later dismissed for failing to pay the appellate filing fee. This second dismissal was also on the merits. See Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001).

Solomon does not dispute that the present Complaint is derivative of the prior Complaints. Instead, he argues that the motion should be denied because eleven of the 191 paragraphs in the instant Complaint set out "new" allegations. These paragraphs, as characterized in the opposition to the motion to dismiss, allege that in 2001, Solomon purchased two Texas Instruments "discovery boards" from PSI for $25,000, that the boards proved defective, that in 2003 and 2004, Solomon was misled by an employee of PSI (Becky Bell) into returning the boards in the belief that they would be repaired, and that Texas Instruments thereafter sold them to "other customers," thereby committing a "grand larceny by deception."

Ms. Bell is variously alleged to be an employee of Texas Instruments, PSI, or Tyrex, Inc. Texas Instruments states that she is not one of its employees, but rather an employee of PSI. Texas Instruments also notes that PSI is not one of its subsidiaries, but rather an independent distributor of its products. Absent some plausible basis for holding Texas Instruments vicariously liable for the actions of PSI, there is no conceivable cause of action for conversion against Texas Instruments.

The motion to dismiss will be ALLOWED. Almost all of the claims set out in the instant Complaint have been previously adjudicated adversely to Solomon on the merits. Relitigation of those claims is therefore barred by res judicata. Massachusetts School of Law Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Association, 142 F.3d 26, 37-38 (1st Cir. 1998). The doctrine of res judicata extinguishes not only claims that have been previously adjudicated on the merits, but also the litigation of claims arising from the same set of operative facts that "could have been raised in the prior proceeding." Wolf v. Gruntal Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 524, 527-528 (1st Cir. 1995). As Solomon's "conversion" claim could have been raised by a timely motion to amend the 2004 Complaint, he is barred from litigating it now.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Texas Instrument's motion to dismiss is ALLOWED with prejudice as to all defendants. Because this is the third time that Texas Instruments has been forced to defend itself in this court against the same meritless claims, Dennis Solomon is hereby ENJOINED from filing any further Complaints regarding the same or related subject matter without prior leave of court. The Clerk is directed to post Dennis Solomon on the court's list of enjoined litigants.

Texas Instrument notes that Solomon is a serial filer in the federal courts.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Solomon v. Texas Instruments, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Jan 10, 2007
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-11307-RGS (D. Mass. Jan. 10, 2007)

noting that "because this is the third time that Texas Instruments has been forced to defend itself in this court against the same meritless claims, Dennis Solomon is hereby ENJOINED from filing any further Complaints regarding the same or related subject matter without prior leave of court"

Summary of this case from Solomon v. Khoury
Case details for

Solomon v. Texas Instruments, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS SOLOMON v. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Jan 10, 2007

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-11307-RGS (D. Mass. Jan. 10, 2007)

Citing Cases

Solomon v. Khoury

In granting the motions to dismiss, the Court further recognizes that another judge within this district has…

Solomon v. University of Southern California

On March 28, 2005, that complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute by the United States District Court…