Bruzzone v. Intel CA6

Filed 7/17/14 Bruzzone v. Intel CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, H039066 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. CV213829)

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Michael A. Bruzzone, acting in propria persona here and in the court below, appeals from a judgment dismissing his action against Intel Corporation (hereafter “Intel”). On appeal, he contends that the trial court “erred in dismissing appellant’s civil case as a matter of state policy and federal law.” As set forth below, appellant has failed to present a cogent legal argument supported by citation to relevant authorities, and we therefore will affirm. BACKGROUND On November 29, 2011, appellant filed a complaint against Intel. The complaint contained 11 causes of action: 1) “Breach of Corp. Fiduciary Duties and Malfeasance,” 2) “Corporate & Attorney Cover Up to Conceal Network Crime,” 3) “Witness Tampering to Disqualify Federal Reporter,” 4) “Constructed Fraud to Misprision Federal Reporter,” 5) “Constructed Fraud to Obstruct, Delay, Disrupt Administration of Justice,” 6) “Breach of Good Faith & Fair Dealing,” 7) “Placing into False Light,” 8) “Interference w/

Prospective Business Advantage,” 9) “Disclosure of Private Facts,” 10) “Attorney Violation Code of Professionalism Sect. 9 & 13d,” and 11) “Retaliation in Violation of California Public Policy.” Among the many allegations in the complaint, appellant asserted the following: Intel agents recruited appellant to work as an “industrial spy;” Intel employees engaged in a “construct[ive] fraud” in order to conceal appellant’s knowledge that “Intel is extensively infiltrated by organized crime network;” Intel agents confined appellant in an “11 foot by 11 foot space where handlers implement[ed] Staton DeGrandpre behavioral-pharmacological conditioning;” Intel agents sought to “depress [appellant] into drug addiction” and “depress [appellant] into suicide;” and Intel targeted appellant for assassination and castration. Intel demurred to each cause of action in the complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the second, fourth, fifth, and tenth causes of action, finding that those causes of action did not state a “cognizable private right of action in California.” The court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to the seven remaining causes of action. On April 23, 2012, appellant filed a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint contained 12 causes of action: 1) “Violation of Cartwright Act,” 2) “California Title 3 § 38; Misprision of Treason,” 3) “Negligence, Gross Negligence,” 4) “Abuse of Process,” 5) “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,” 6) “Undue Influence, Duress, Manipulate Unsound Mind,” 7) “Fraud and Actual Fraud,” 8) “Violation of Federal Civil Rights; 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 43 USC 1986,” 9) “Breach of Fiduciary Duties Constitutionally Protected Public Policy Activity,” 10) “False Light,” 11) “Intent to Destroy Plaintiff Beyond the Bounds of Fair Competition and Fair Play, and 12) “Retaliation in Violation of California Public Policy.” Among the various allegations in the first amended complaint, appellant asserted the following: Intel procured a “cartel ringmaster” to “set a bounty on and mark [appellant] as prey for hunting by industrial