eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2023-03

Atm Khalid v. Citrix Systems, Inc. ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 14 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, Esquire, an                 No.   21-35376
individual and on behalf of similarly
situated,                                        D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00711-RAJ
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., John Doe n,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
ATM Shafiqul Khalid appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his
action against Citrix Systems, Inc. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Curry v. Yelp, Inc.,
    875 F.3d 1219
    , 1224
(9th Cir. 2017). We affirm the district court’s judgment.
The district court properly dismissed Counts 2, 5, 9, and 10 as barred by res
judicata under Washington law in light of Khalid’s prior state court suit against
Citrix. See Hardwick v. County of Orange,
    980 F.3d 733
    , 740 (9th Cir. 2020)
(federal court looks to state preclusion law); Afoa v. Port of Seattle,
    421 P.3d 903
    ,
914 (Wash. 2018) (requirements for res judicata).
The district court correctly concluded that Khalid failed to state a claim of
price discrimination or exclusive dealing under the Clayton Act premised on
Citrix’s alleged wrongful claim to ownership of Khalid’s patents. See Aerotec
Int’l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.,
    836 F.3d 1171
    , 1187 (9th Cir. 2016) (price
discrimination); Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Grp. LP,
    592 F.3d 991
    , 996 (9th Cir. 2010) (exclusive dealing).
The district court correctly concluded that Khalid failed to state a claim for
attempted monopolization under Sherman Act § 2. See Optronic Techs., Inc. v.
Ningbo Sunny Elec. Co.,
    20 F.4th 466
    , 481–82 (9th Cir. 2021) (elements of claim);
2
see also Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc.,
    547 U.S. 28
    , 41–43 & n.4 (2006)
(market power is not presumed from the mere fact that one holds a patent).
The district court correctly concluded that Khalid failed to state a forced
labor claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act because he did not
plausibly allege Citrix attempted to coerce him into providing labor. See
    18 U.S.C. § 1589
    .
The district court correctly concluded that Khalid’s civil rights claims are
barred by the three-year statute of limitations. See Boston v. Kitsap County,
    852 F.3d 1182
    , 1185 (9th Cir. 2017) (three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims
in Washington); McDougal v. County of Imperial,
    942 F.2d 668
    , 673–74 (9th Cir.
1991) (statute of limitations for § 1985(3) claims is the same as for § 1983 claims).
Citrix’s request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38
is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3