70 Judges' Reply To Judges' Motion To Dismiss

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 1 of 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
J AM ES B. GI LP I N, Bar No. 1 5 1 4 6 6 J ames . Gi l p i n @b b k l aw. com M ATTHEW L. GREEN, Bar No. 2 2 7 9 0 4 M atth ew. Green @b b k l aw. com BESTBEST& KRI EGER LLP 6 5 5W . Broad way, 1 5 thF l oor SanDi eg o, CA 9 2 1 0 1 Tel ep h on e: ( 6 1 9 )5 2 5 1 3 0 0 F acs i mi l e: ( 6 1 9 )2 3 3 6 1 1 8 Attorn eysfor Defen d an ts SUP ERI OR COURTOFCALI F ORNI A, COUNTY OFSAN DI EGO ( erron eou s l y s u edasSUP ERI OR COURTOFSAN DI EGO COUNTY) ; HON. ROBERTJ . TRENTACOSTA, P res i d i n gJ u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt ( erron eou s l ys u edasRob ert J . Tren tacos ts a) ; MI CHAELM . RODDY, Ex ecu ti v e Offi cer of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. LI SA SCHALL, J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. LORNA A. ALKSNE, J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. CHRI STI NEK. GOLDSM I TH, J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. J EANNI ELOW E, Commi s s i on er of th e Su p eri or Cou rt ( Ret. ) ; HON. WI LLI AM H. M cADAM , J R. , J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. EDLENEC. M cKENZI E, Commi s s i on er of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; an d HON. J OELR. W OHLF EI L, J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt UNI TED STATES DI STRI CTCOURT SOUTHERN DI STRI CTOFCALI F ORNI A
CALI F ORNI A COALI TI ON F OR F AM I LI ES AND CHI LDREN, et al . , P l ai n ti ffs , v . SAN DI EGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCI ATI ON, et al . , Defen d an ts .
Cas e No.1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM ) J u d g e: Hon . Cath y An nBen ci v en g o REP LY TO OP P OSI TI ON TO M OTI ON TO DI SM I SS Date: Decemb er 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 Ti me: 3 : 3 0p . m. Cou rtroom: 4 C [NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS REQUESTED BY COURT] Comp l ai n tF i l ed : Au g u s t2 0 , 2 0 1 3
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
1 -
REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I . I I .
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
REP LY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ARGUM ENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. CCF C AND LEXEVI A LACK CAP ACI TY TO SUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. P LAI NTI F F SF AI LURETO COM P LY W I TH RULE8 RENDERS THECOM P LAI NTSUBJ ECTTO DI SM I SSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 C. P LAI NTI F F SCLAI M S AGAI NSTTHESUP ERI OR COURT AND I TS J UDGES AND EM P LOYEES AREBARRED BY ELEVENTH AM ENDM ENTI M M UNI TY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 D. P LAI NTI F F SCLAI M S AGAI NSTTHESUP ERI OR COURT J UDGES AREALSO BARRED BY J UDI CI ALI M M UNI TY . . . . . . . . . . 5 E. P LAI NTI F F SCLAI M S AGAI NSTM R. RODDY ARE BARRED BY QUASI J UDI CI ALI M M UNI TY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 F . THECOM P LAI NTF AI LS TO ALLEGEF ACTS SUF F I CI ENTTO STATEA SECTI ON 1 9 8 3ACTI ON AGAI NSTANY SUP ERI OR COURTDEF ENDANT RELATI NG TO THESOCALLED STUARTASSAULT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 G. THECOM P LAI NTDOES NOTAND CANNOT ALLEGE F ACTS SUF F I CI ENTTO STATETO A CLAI M UNDER SECTI ONS 1 9 8 5AND 1 9 8 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 H. THECI VI LRI GHTS CLAI M S AREBARRED BY THE STATUTEOFLI MI TATI ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 I . STUART S CLAI M S RELATI NG TO J UDGES W OHLF EI L AND SCHALL S CONDUCTI N HI S DI SSOLUTI ON P ROCEEDI NG AREBARRED BY THEROOKERF ELDM AN DOCTRI NE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 J . STUART SF ALSEADVERTI SI NG CLAI M UNDER THE LANHAM ACTI S UNTENABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 K. THECOM P LAI NTDOES NOTALLEGEF ACTS SUF F I CI ENTTO STATEA CI VI LRI CO ACTI ON AGAI NST THESUP ERI OR COURTDEF ENDANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 L. THECOM P LAI NTF AI LS TO ESTABLI SH THATSTUART HAS STANDI NG TO P URSUEP ROSP ECTI VERELI EF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 I I I . CONCLUSI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4
-i -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)
Federal Cases Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 8 6 2F . 2 d1 3 8 8( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 8 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 1 9 2F . 3 d1 2 6 0( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 9 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Barrus v. Sylvania, 5 5F . 3 d4 6 8( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 5 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Boag v. Chief of Police, 6 6 9F . 2 d5 8 7( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 6 3 7F . 3 d1 0 4 7( 9 thCi r. 2 0 1 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 , 3 , 4 In re Castillo, 2 9 7F . 3 d9 4 0( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 In re Century 21-Re/Max, 8 8 2F . Su p p . 9 1 5( C. D. Cal . 1 9 9 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 4 6 1U. S. 9 5( 1 9 8 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Coulter v. Murrell, Cas e No. 1 0 cv 1 0 2 I EG ( NLS) , ( S. D. Cal . M ar. 1 , 2 0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Cruz v. Citifinancial Mortg. Co., Ci v i l No. 0 6 CV8 1 9 , 2 0 0 7U. S. Di s t. LEXI S7 3 1 7 9 ( S. D. Cal . Oct. 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 2 5 2F . 3 d1 0 2 6( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Garcia v. Strayhord, Ci v i l No. 1 3 cv 0 8 0 7 , 2 0 1 3U. S. Di s t. LEXI S1 3 5 9 9 8 ( S. D. Cal . Sep . 2 3 , 2 0 1 3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 , 8 , 9
i i -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
Greater Los Angeles Council of Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 8 1 2F . 2 d1 1 0 3( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates v. City of Morgan Hill, 3 5 3F . 3 d6 5 1( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 7 5 8F . 2 d4 0 9( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 5 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 5 3 0F . 3 d1 1 2 4( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 8 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Jacobson v. Pettersson, No. CV6 1 1 1 7 , 2 0 0 7U. S. Di s t. LEXI S1 4 9 5 2 ( W. D. W as h . M ar. 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 9 Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 8 3 9F . 2 d6 2 1( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 8 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Keil v. Coronado, 5 2F ed . Ap p x . 9 9 5( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Kruse v. Hawaii, 6 8F . 3 d3 3 1( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 5 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Lancaster Community Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 9 4 0F . 2 d3 9 7( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 9 4 6F . 2 d6 3 0( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 McHenry v. Renne, 8 4F . 3 d1 1 7 2( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 6 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 8 8 5F . 2 d5 3 1( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 9 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Moore v. Superior Court of Cal., Cas e No. 1 3 cv 0 7 1 1 , 2 0 1 3U. S. Di s t. LEXI S6 4 5 7 2 ( S. D. Cal . M ay 6 , 2 0 1 3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 6 7 5F . 3 d1 2 1 3( 9 thCi r. 2 0 1 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
i i i -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 6 5 1F . 2 d6 7 1( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 6 9 9F . 3 d1 0 5 3( 9 thCi r. 2 0 1 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Parker v. Google, Inc., 4 2 2F . Su p p . 2 d4 9 2( E. D. P a. 2 0 0 6 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Schmidt v. Herrmann, 6 1 4F . 2 d1 2 2 1( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Starr v. Baca, 6 5 2F . 3 d1 2 0 2( 9 thCi r. 2 0 1 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 9 9 3F . 2 d7 1 0( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 U.S. v. Frega, 1 7 9F . 3 d7 9 3( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 9 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 U.S. v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 3 2 8F . 3 d3 7 4( 7 thCi r. 2 0 0 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 8 2 8F . 2 d5 5 6( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 W. Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., No. CV 1 1 3 4 7 3 , 2 0 1 2U. S. Di s t. LEXI S1 0 9 9 2 7 ( C. D. Cal . J u l . 3 1 , 2 0 1 2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Williams v. Coughlan, 2 4 4F . 2 d6( 9 thCi r. 1 9 5 7 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Yeager v. City of San Diego, Cas e No. 0 5 CV2 0 8 9 , 2 0 0 7U. S. Di s t. LEXI S4 0 3 8 1 ( S. D. Cal . J u n e1 , 2 0 0 7 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Federal Statutes 1 8U. S. C. 1 9 6 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 4 2U. S. C. 1 9 8 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 , 7 , 8 , 9
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
i v -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7
Rack eteer I n fl u en cedan dCorru p t Org an i z ati on sAct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 1 2 , 1 3 California Statutes Cal . Bu s . &P rof. Cod e 6 1 6 0 6 1 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Cal . Cod e Ci v . P roc. 3 2 8 . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Cal . Cod e Ci v . P roc. 3 3 5 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Cal . Cod e Ci v . P roc. 3 3 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Cal . Cod e Ci v . P roc. 3 5 2 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Cal . Corp . Cod e 1 3 4 0 5 ( a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Cal . Gov . Cod e 9 4 5 . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Cal . Gov . Cod e 7 0 3 0 1 7 0 4 0 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Cal . Gov . Cod e 7 7 0 0 3 , 7 7 2 0 0 , et seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Other State Statutes Lan h am Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 1 1 , 1 2 Other Authorities Cal . Con s t. Arti cl e VI , 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
Cal . Ru l esof Ct. , ru l e1 0 . 8 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
v -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
LAW O FFI C E S OF B E ST B E ST & K RI E G E R LLP 6 5 5 W E ST B RO ADW AY,15 TH FLO O R SANDI E G O ,C A 9 2 101
Th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsres p ectfu l l y s u b mi t th e fol l owi n g rep l y to P l ai n ti ff Col b ern C.Stu art s( Stu art )op p os i ti on to th e moti on to d i s mi s sth e Comp l ai n t. I. REPLY Rel yi n g on i n comp reh en s i b l e ramb l i n g an d con cl u s ory al l eg ati on s of a wi d es p readcon s p i racy b y th e fami l yl aw commu n i ty, P l ai n ti ffsp u rp ort to as s ert cl ai msag ai n s tv ari ou sSu p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsfor fed eral ci v i l ri g h tsv i ol ati on s , fal s e ad v erti s i n gu n d er th e Lan h am Act, v i ol ati onof th e Rack eteer I n fl u en cedan d Corru p t Org an i z ati on sAct ( RI CO ) ,an d eq u i tab l e rel i ef. ( Comp l . 1 4 2 1 7 6 , 1 8 0 2 5 7 , 2 6 0 2 6 7 , 3 4 5 3 7 4 , 3 9 2 3 9 6 . )Before ad d res s i n gth en u merou ss u b s tan ti v e d efi ci en ci esi nth e Comp l ai n t, CCF C an dLex ev i a scl ai mss h ou l db ed i s mi s s edfor l ackof cap aci ty b ecau s e th ey remai nu n rep res en tedb y cou n s el ,an dLex ev i ai sa s u s p en d edcorp orati on .CCF C an dLex ev i ah av e fi l edn o op p os i ti onto th e moti on to d i s mi s s , an dth ei r fai l u re to d os os h ou l db ed eemeda con ces s i onreg ard i n gth e meri tsof th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts moti onto d i s mi s s . Th e Comp l ai n ti sal s os u b j ect to d i s mi s s alfor fai l u re to comp l y wi thRu l e8 . Di s cern i n gP l ai n ti ffs cl ai msan d al l eg ati on si sani n s u rmou n tab l e tas kd u e to th e l en g thof th e Comp l ai n t, wh i chtotal s1 , 3 0 0p ag eswi thi tsv ol u mi n ou sex h i b i ts , an d th e Comp l ai n t oth erwi s e con s i s tsof a b u ck et of mu d . Wi threg ardto th es u b s tan ce of th e Comp l ai n t,al lof th e cl ai msag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsare b arred b y th e El ev en th Amen d men t. I t i swel l s ettl ed i n th e Ni n th Ci rcu i t th at Cal i forn i a s u p eri or cou rtsan d th ei r j u d g esan d emp l oyeesen j oy El ev en th Amen d men t i mmu n i ty. W h i l e El ev en th Amen d men t i mmu n i ty al on es u p p ortsth ed i s mi s s alof th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsfrom th e acti on , P l ai n ti ffs cl ai msare al s ob arredb yj u d i ci al an dq u as i j u d i ci al i mmu n i ty, th e Rooker-Feldman d octri n e, an dth es tatu te of l i mi tati on s , an doth erwi s e fai lto s tate factss u ffi ci en t to s tate a cl ai m ag ai n s t an y Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts .
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
1 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
II. ARGUMENT A.
CCFC AND LEXEVIA LACK CAPACITY TO SUE
CCF C an d Lex ev i a scl ai mss h ou l db ed i s mi s s ed on th eg rou n d sth at b oth corp orati on sare attemp ti n g to p roceed in propria persona,an d th at Lex ev i ai sa s u s p en d ed corp orati on .( Doc.No. 1 6 1at 7 : 1 9 : 6 . ) Nei th er CCF Cn or Lex ev i a h av e op p os ed th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts moti on ,an d th ei r fai l u re to d o s o s h ou l dcon s ti tu te th ei r con s en t to th eg ran ti n gof th e moti on . Ci v LR 7 . 1 ( f) ( 3 ) ( c) . Wh i l e Stu art ad d res s edcap aci ty i nani mp rop er moti onto s tri k e, ( Doc. No. 1 9 ) , h e d oesn ot d i s p u te th at u n rep res en ted an ds u s p en d ed corp orati on sl ack cap aci ty to s u e. I n s tead ,Stu art as s ertsth at corp orate an ds tate b ar record sare n ot s u b j ect to j u d i ci aln oti ce an d th at cap aci ty i sn ot a p rop er s u b j ect for a moti on to d i s mi s s . ( Doc.No.1 9 1 at 5 : 2 3 1 0 : 2 4 . ) Ass et forth i n th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts op p os i ti onto Stu art smoti onto s tri k e,s u chmattersare p rop erty con s i d eredona
1 moti onto d i s mi s s . ( See Doc. No. 5 5at 3 : 1 0 4 : 2 7 . )
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
B.
PLAINTIFFS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8 RENDERS THE COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL
Notwi th s tan d i n g Lex ev i a an d CCF C si n cap aci ty to s u e,th e Comp l ai n t i s s u b j ect to ou tri g h t d i s mi s s alu n d er Ru l e 8d u e to i tsou trag eou sl en g th of 1 , 3 0 0 p ag eswi th ex h i b i ts ,th e b od y of wh i ch i s1 7 7p ag esal on e. Un d er wh at Stu art refersto asa b u ck et of mu d attack , see U.S. v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 3 2 8F . 3 d 3 7 4 , 3 7 8( 7 thCi r. 2 0 0 3 ) , th e Ni n thCi rcu i th ash el dth at Ru l e 8i sv i ol atedwh ere a p l ead i n gi s n eed l es s l y l on g , h i g h l y rep eti ti ou s , con fu s ed , or con s i s ted of i n comp reh en s i b l e ramb l i n g . Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys.,6 3 7F . 3 d1 0 4 7 ,
Wh i l e Stu art cl ai msth at rei n s tatemen t of Lex ev i a scorp orate s tatu si s u n d erway, ( Doc. No.1 9 1 ,at 9 : 9 1 1 ) ,Stu art sab i l i ty to rei n s tate i tscorp orate s tatu si sd ou b tfu l . Lex ev i ai sa p rofes s i on alcorp orati on of wh i ch Stu art i sth e s ol e s h areh ol d er,an d Stu art i sd i s q u al i fi ed to ren d er p rofes s i on al s erv i ces .( See Cal . Corp . Cod e 1 3 4 0 5 ( a) ; Cal . Bu s . &P rof. Cod e 6 1 6 0 6 1 6 5 ; see also Cal . State Bar Ru l es3 . 1 5 0et seq. )
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
2-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
1 0 5 8( 9 thCi r. 2 0 1 1 ) . Stu art attemp tsto d i s ti n g u i s hCafasso onth eg rou n dth at i ti n v ol v eda moti on for j u d g men t onth ep l ead i n g su n d er Ru l e1 2 ( c) ,n ot a Ru l e1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )moti on ,an d arg u esth at moti on sto d i s mi s scon s i s ti n gof th e b u ck et of mu d attackat th e Ru l e 1 2s tag eh av eb eens p eci fi cal l y rej ectedb y th e Cou rt of Ap p eal s . ( Doc. No. 2 1at 1 2 : 2 8 1 3 : 1 9 ,1 4 : 2 0 1 6 : 6 . ) Not on l y d oes Cafasso n ote th at Ru l e 1 2 ( c) i s fu n cti on al l y i d en ti cal to Ru l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )an d th at th e s ame s tan d ard of rev i ew ap p l i esto moti on sb rou g h t u n d er ei th er ru l e[ , ] 6 3 7F . 3 d at 1 0 5 4n . 4 ,b u t th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts b u ck et of mu d ch al l en g ei sex p res s l yb rou g h tu n d er Ru l e8 .( Doc. No. 1 6 1at 9 : 7 1 0 : 9 ; see also Doc No. 1 6at 1 , 3 . ) Stu art sas s erti onth at a Ru l e 8attacki si mp rop er at th ep l ead i n gs tag ei sal s o i l l og i cal .( See Doc. No. 2 1at 1 4 : 2 0 2 6 . )Gi v enRu l e 8s etsforthth eb as i cs tan d ard for p l ead i n ga cl ai m for rel i ef, comp l i an ce wi thRu l e 8i sof cou rs ed etermi n edb y rev i ewi n gth ep l ead i n g .I neachof th e cas esci tedi nCafasso, n on comp l i an ce wi th Ru l e 8 wason e of th e g rou n d son wh i ch th e p l ead i n g at i s s u e wasd i s mi s s ed . McHenry v. Renne,8 4F . 3 d1 1 7 2 ,1 1 7 7 8 0( 9 th Ci r.1 9 9 6 )( n oti n g th at Ru l e 8 ap p l i esto g oodcl ai msaswel lasb ad , an di sa b as i sfor d i s mi s s ali n d ep en d en t of Ru l e1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) ) ) ;see also Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co.,7 5 8F . 2 d4 0 9 ,4 1 5( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 5 ) ;Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co.,6 5 1F . 2 d6 7 1 ,6 7 4( 9 th Ci r.1 9 8 1 ) ; Schmidt v. Herrmann, 6 1 4F . 2 d1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 4( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 0 ) . Stu art srel i an ce on Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 5 3 0F . 3 d1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 1( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 8 )i smi s p l aced .( Doc. No. 2 1at 1 4 : 2 7 1 5 : 3 . ) Asd i s ti n g u i s h ed i n Cafasso,Hearns i n v ol v ed an 8 1 p ag e comp l ai n t th at,wh i l e ex ces s i v e [ i n ] d etai l , waswri tten wi th s u ffi ci en t cl ari ty an d org an i z ati on th at th e d efen d an ts wou l d h av en od i ffi cu l ty i nres p on d i n gto th e cl ai ms . Cafasso, 6 3 7F . 3 dat 1 0 5 9 ( q u oti n g Hearns,5 3 0F . 3 dat 1 1 3 2 ) . Becau s e Stu art sComp l ai n ti su n i n tel l i g i b l e an d req u i resth e d efen d an tsan d th e Cou rt to p en etrate a tome ap p roach i n g th e mag n i tu d e of War and Peace to d i s cern[ th e]p l ai n ti ff scl ai msan dal l eg ati on s [ , ]
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
3-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
2 Cafasso, 6 3 7F . 3 dat 1 0 5 8 , th e Cou rt s h ou l dd i s mi s sth e Comp l ai n tu n d er Ru l e8 .
C.
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ITS JUDGES AND EMPLOYEES ARE BARRED BY ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY
Notwi th s tan d i n g th e p roced u rald efi ci en ci esi n th e Comp l ai n t,th e cl ai ms ag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts are al s o s u b j ect to d i s mi s s alu n d er th e El ev en thAmen d men t, wh i chb arss u i tsag ai n s tas tate or anarm of th es tate. ( See Doc.No.1 6 1 at 1 0 : 1 0 1 1 : 8 . )I nh i sop p os i ti on ,Stu art as s ertsth at th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsare n ot en ti tl edto d i s mi s s alat th i ss tag eb ecau s e th e face of th e Comp l ai n td oesn ot d i s cl os e factses tab l i s h i n gth at an y Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ti s anarm of th es tate.( Doc. No. 2 1at 8 : 1 0 1 2 : 1 9 . ) Th e Ni n thCi rcu i t, h owev er, h as h el dth at s tate cas el aw an dcon s ti tu ti on alp rov i s i on smak e cl earth at Cal i forn i a s u p eri or cou rtsare con s i d ereda State ag en cy for p u rp os esof El ev en thAmen d men t
3 i mmu n i ty. Greater Los Angeles Council of Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 8 1 2F . 2 d1 1 0 3 ,
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
1 1 1 0( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 7 )( ci ti n gCal . Con s t. art. 6 1 , 5 ;Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. v. Superior Court, 2 3 8P . 6 8 7 , 6 9 4( Cal . 1 9 2 5 ) ) . M oreov er, th e Ni n th Ci rcu i t h as con s i s ten tl y recog n i z ed th at El ev en th Amen d men ti mmu n i ty i sp rop erl y ap p l i edona Ru l e1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )moti on , an dcou rtsi n th i sDi s tri ct ag ree.Moore v. Superior Court of Cal., Cas e No. 1 3 cv 0 7 1 1 , 2 0 1 3U. S. Di s t.LEXI S6 4 5 7 2 ,at * 1 2( S.D.Cal .M ay 6 ,2 0 1 3 )( M os k owi tz ,J . )( d i s mi s s i n g cl ai msag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt an dP res i d i n gJ u d g e Tren tacos ta u n d er El ev en th Amen d men ti mmu n i ty) ;see also Cruz v. Citifinancial Mortg. Co.,Ci v i lNo.0 6 CV8 1 9 , 2 0 0 7U. S. Di s t. LEXI S7 3 1 7 9 , at * 1 1 1 2( S. D. Cal . Oct. 1 , 2 0 0 7 )( Loren z ,
Al th ou g hci tedb y Stu art i nv i ol ati onof Ru l e3 6 3of th e Local Ru l esof th e Ni n thCi rcu i t Cou rt of Ap p eal s , Keil v. Coronado, 5 2F ed . Ap p x . 9 9 5( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 2 )i sal s oi n ap p os i te, asth e Comp l ai n td oesn ot s ati s fy Ru l e8 ( a) ( 2 ) sreq u i remen t of a s h ort an dp l ai ns tatemen t. 3 I t al s o s h ou l db e n oted th at effecti v e J u l y 1 ,1 9 9 7 ,th e State of Cal i forn i a as s u med res p on s i b i l i ty for th e fu n d i n gof al ls tate tri alcou rt op erati on s . See Cal .Gov .Cod e 7 7 0 0 3 , 7 7 2 0 0 , et seq.;Cal .Ru l es of Ct. ,ru l e 1 0 . 8 1 0 ,fu n cti on 1 0 ( b ) ,ru l e 1 0 . 2 0 1 ,ru l e,1 0 . 2 0 2 . Ad d i ti on al l y,u n d er th e Cal i forn i a Tri alCou rt F aci l i ti esAct of 2 0 0 2 ,al l5 3 2s u p eri or cou rt faci l i ti eswere tran s ferredfrom th e cou n ti esto th e State b y th es tatu tory d ead l i n e of Decemb er 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 .Cal . Gov . Cod e 7 0 3 0 1 7 0 4 0 4 .
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
4-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
J . ) ;Yeager v. City of San Diego,Cas e No.0 5 CV2 0 8 9 ,2 0 0 7 U. S.Di s t.LEXI S 4 0 3 8 1 ,at * 2 5 2 6( S. D.Cal .J u n e 1 ,2 0 0 7 )( Ben i tez ,J . ) . El ev en th Amen d men t i mmu n i ty th erefore s u p p ortsth ed i s mi s s alof th e Su p eri or Cou rt an di tsj u d g esan d emp l oyeeswi thp rej u d i ce. D. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ARE ALSO BARRED BY JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
I n s ofar asP l ai n ti ffsch al l en g e fami l y cou rt j u d g es al l eg edfai l u re to fol l ow th el aw, ( s ee Comp l . 7 7 , 7 8 . 8 , 2 3 7 2 4 5 ) , s u chcl ai msare b arredb y th ed octri n e of j u d i ci ali mmu n i ty. ( See Doc.No.1 6 1at 1 1 : 9 1 2 : 5 . )I nh i sop p os i ti on ,Stu art attemp tsto recas th i scl ai msasari s i n g ou t of n i n e coreev en ts ,n on e of wh i ch referen ce h i sch al l en g e of j u d i ci alru l i n g san dd eci s i on s .( Doc. No. 2 1at 4 : 8 6 : 4 . ) Stu art g en eral l y al l eg esth at th ed efen d an ts ,wh i chcon s i s t of th el ocal fami l yl aw commu n i ty, h av e fai l edto u p h ol dcertai nfed eral fami l y ri g h tsan dh av ei n terfered wi thStu art seffortsto reform th e fami l yl aw s ys tem. ( Doc. No. 2 1at 4 : 8 6 : 4 . ) Des p i te Stu art sattemp t to rech aracteri z eh i scl ai ms , an y attack si nth e Comp l ai n t mou n ted ag ai n s t s p eci fi c j u d i ci ald eci s i on sth at Stu art p ercei v esto s u p p ort h i s u n fou n d edth eori es ,s u chasth ep orti onof th e Comp l ai n t rel ati n gto Stu art sown d i s s ol u ti onp roceed i n g ,( Comp l . 2 3 7 2 4 5 ) ,are u n eq u i v ocal l yb arredb yj u d i ci al
4 i mmu n i ty.
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6
E.
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST MR. RODDY ARE BARRED BY QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
P l ai n ti ffs cl ai msag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt sEx ecu ti v e Offi cer, M r. Rod d y, are al s ob arredb yq u as i j u d i ci ali mmu n i ty. ( Doc.No.1 6 1at 1 2 : 6 2 2 ) ;see, e.g., Doc. No. 6 7 , Coulter v. Murrell, Cas e No. 1 0 cv 1 0 2 I EG ( NLS) , ( S. D. Cal . M ar. 1 , 2 0 1 1 )( Gon z al ez , J . )( g ran ti n gs u mmary j u d g men ti nfav or of M r. Rod d y onq u as i 4
2 7 2 8
Th e on l y an al ys i sof j u d i ci ali mmu n i ty Stu art offersi nh i sop p os i ti onrel atesto certai n j u d i ci aloffi cers al l eg ed i n v ol v emen ti n th es ocal l ed Stu art As s au l t. ( Doc.No.2 1 at 6 : 1 0 7 : 7 . ) Th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts moti on to d i s mi s s ,h owev er,d i dn ot rai s e j u d i ci al i mmu n i ty wi threg ardto th es ocal l ed Stu art As s au l t.
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
5-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
j u d i ci al i mmu n i ty g rou n d s ) . I nh i s op p os i ti on , Stu art arg u es q u as i j u d i ci al i mmu n i ty d oes n ot ap p l y b ecau s e M r. Rod d y s res p on s i b i l i ti es are merel y ad mi n i s trati v e,an dth e Comp l ai n t targ etsoth er con d u ct th at i sn ot es s en ti alto th e op erati onof th e cou rts .( Doc. No. 2 1at 7 : 2 4 8 : 5 . ) Wh i l e Stu art ch aracteri z es M r.Rod d y as on l y an ad mi n i s trator, q u as i j u d i ci ali mmu n i ty ap p l i esto ad mi n i s trati v e actsth at wh env i ewedi ncon tex t are actu al l yap art of th ej u d i ci alfu n cti on . In re Castillo, 2 9 7F . 3 d9 4 0 , 9 5 2( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 2 ) . M r.Rod d y s oth er al l eg ed con d u ct con s i s ts of ab u s i n gp roces s an d ex torti n gfu n d sfrom fami l i esi ns tate fami l y cou rt p roceed i n g s . ( Comp l . 9 4 . ) Not on l yd oesth i sal l eg ati oncon s i s t of a l eg alcon cl u s i on ,b u t ad mi n i s trati v e acts tak en i n con n ecti on wi th fami l y l aw cas esb efore th e Su p eri or Cou rt wou l db e wi th i n th e s cop e of M r.Rod d y sau th ori ty an d th erefore p rotected u n d er q u as i j u d i ci ali mmu n i ty. Qu as i j u d i ci ali mmu n i ty th erefore p rov i d esan oth er b as i sto d i s mi s sP l ai n ti ffs cl ai msag ai n s t M r. Rod d y. F. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO STATE A SECTION 1983 ACTION AGAINST ANY SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANT RELATING TO THE SOCALLED STUART ASSAULT
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
Th e Comp l ai n ti d en ti fi esth e cen trals u b j ectof th i smatter asth es ocal l ed Stu art As s au l t, wh i ch p u rp ortsto p rov i d e th e b as i sfor ei g h t cl ai msu n d er 4 2 U. S. C. 1 9 8 3 . ( Comp l . 1 1 4 ,1 4 2 1 5 0 ,1 5 8 1 7 6 ,1 8 0 1 9 0 . ) Reg ard l es s of wh eth er Stu art ch aracteri z es th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts ch al l en g e of th e Secti on 1 9 8 3 cl ai ms as b ei n gb as ed on th e ab s en ce of cau s ati on or acts ,th e al l eg ati on s of th e Comp l ai n t are far too atten u ated to es tab l i s h Secti on 1 9 8 3 l i ab i l i ty ag ai n s t an y Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an t rel ati n gto Stu art sarres t.( See Doc. No. 1 6 1at 1 3 : 7 1 5 : 1 . ) Th e cru xof Stu art sop p os i ti oni sth at s u ffi ci en t factsh av eb eenal l eg edto i mp os es u p erv i s ory l i ab i l i ty ag ai n s t certai nSu p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts .( See Doc. No. 2 1at 1 8 : 1 0 1 9 : 1 3( ci ti n gOSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 6 9 9F . 3 d1 0 5 3( 9 thCi r.
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
6-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
2 0 1 2 ) ;Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,6 7 5F . 3 d1 2 1 3 ,1 2 2 5( 9 th Ci r.2 0 1 2 ) ;Starr v. Baca,6 5 2F . 3 d1 2 0 2( 9 thCi r.2 0 1 1 ) ;Larez v. City of Los Angeles,9 4 6F . 2 d6 3 0 , 6 4 2( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 1 ) . )To i mp os es u p erv i s ory l i ab i l i ty i na Secti on1 9 8 3con tex t, th e p l ai n ti ff mu s ts h ow th es u p erv i s or s et[ ]i n moti on a s eri esof actsby others,or k n owi n g l y refu s ed to termi n ate a s eri es of acts by others,wh i ch h e k n ew or reas on ab l y s h ou l dh av e k n own ,wou l d cau s e to i n fl i ct th e con s ti tu ti on ali n j u ry. Larez, 9 4 6F . 2 dat 6 4 2( emp h as i sad d ed ) .Gi v enth ere are n o factses tab l i s h i n gan y u n d erl yi n g con s ti tu ti on ald ep ri v ati on ,n on e of th e al l eg ed s u p erv i s ory Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsare l i ab l eu n d er Secti on1 9 8 3 . OSU an dStarr are al s oi n ap p os i te b ecau s e th ey d on ot ad d res sth e con s p i racy th eori esad v an ced b y Stu art i n th i scas e,an d th ep l ai n ti ffsi n th os e cas esal l eg ed s u ffi ci en t factsto s tate a cl ai m for s u p erv i s ory l i ab i l i ty. OSU, 6 9 9F . 3 dat 1 0 7 0 7 1 ( s u ffi ci en t factu alal l eg ati on sth at s u p erv i s orsp ers on al l y ap p l i ed u n con s ti tu ti on al p ol i cy ag ai n s tp l ai n ti ffsor k n owi n g l y acq u i es cedi ncon s ti tu ti on al v i ol ati on ) ; Starr, 6 5 2F . 3 d at 1 2 1 6 1 7( d etai l ed factu alal l eg ati on s of i n mate ag ai n s t Sh eri ff for d el i b erate i n d i fferen cei nv i ol ati onof th e Ei g h th an dF ou rteen thAmen d men ts ) . Wi th reg ard to Moss,con trary to Stu art s as s erti on th at th e p l ai n ti ffs p l ed a p l au s i b l e cl ai m ag ai n s t s u p erv i s or d efen d an ts ,( Doc.No.2 1 at 1 8 : 2 8 1 9 : 1 ) ,th e Ni n thCi rcu i th el dth at th ep l ai n ti ffsfai l edto p l eads u ffi ci en t al l eg ati on sto s u p p ort th ei r Secti on1 9 8 3acti on .6 7 5F . 3 dat 1 2 3 2( n oti n gth at [ t[ h read b are reci tal sof el emen tsof a cau s e of acti on ,s u p p orted b y mere con cl u s ory s tatemen ts ,d o n ot s u ffi ce )( q u oti n g Ashcroft v. Iqbal,5 5 6 U. S.6 6 2 ,6 7 8( 2 0 0 9 ) ) . Becau s e Stu art d oesn ot an d can n ot al l eg e p ers on alactsb y an y i n d i v i d u als u p erv i s or Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an t th at h av ead i rect cau s al con n ecti onto an y con s ti tu ti on al v i ol ati on , n o Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ti sl i ab l ei nan ys u p erv i s ory cap aci ty.See, e.g., Garcia v. Strayhord,Ci v i lNo.1 3 cv 0 8 0 7 ,2 0 1 3U. S.Di s t.LEXI S1 3 5 9 9 8 ,at * 7 8( S. D. Cal . Sep . 2 3 , 2 0 1 3 )( Ben i tez , J . ) . Th e on l y oth er b as i son wh i ch th e Comp l ai n t attemp tsto i mp os e Secti on
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
7-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
1 9 8 3 ag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsi sStu art scon cl u s ory al l eg ati on th at al l4 9d efen d an tscon s p i redto s u p p ort th es ocal l ed Stu art As s au l t. ( Comp l . 1 3 7 1 4 0 . )I ti su n con trov erted th at a Secti on1 9 8 3 con s p i racy cl ai m req u i resth e p l ai n ti ff to al l eg e factswi th s u ffi ci en t p arti cu l ari ty to s h ow an ag reemen t or a meeti n gof th e mi n d sto v i ol ate h i scon s ti tu ti on alri g h ts . Garcia, 2 0 1 3U. S. Di s t. LEXI S1 3 5 9 9 8 , at * 3( ci ti n g Margolis v. Ryan, 1 4 0F . 3 d8 5 0 , 8 5 3( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 8 ) ; Woodrum v. Woodward County, 8 6 6F . 2 d1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 6( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 9 ) ) .As i d e from Stu art sb l an k et as s erti on th at th e Comp l ai n t con tai n s th e req u i s i te factu al al l eg ati on s ,th e Comp l ai n t d oesn ot an d can n ot al l eg e s p eci fi c factss h owi n g an ag reemen ti n v ol v i n gan y Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an t to s u p p ort a con s p i racy cl ai m. G. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT AND CANNOT ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO STATE TO A CLAIM UNDER SECTIONS 1985 AND 1986
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
Cou n ts1 1th rou g h1 6of th e Comp l ai n t, wh i chp u rp ort to as s ert cl ai msu n d er 4 2 U. S. C. 1 9 8 5 ( 1 ) ( 3 )an d1 9 8 6 ,( Comp l . 1 9 1 2 1 5 ) ,are al s o s u b j ect to d i s mi s s alfor fai l u re to s tate a cl ai m. ( See Doc.No.1 6 1 at 1 5 : 2 1 6 : 2 . )I nh i s op p os i ti on ,Stu art erron eou s l y arg u esth at h ei sa fed eraloffi cer for p u rp os esof Secti on1 9 8 5 ( 1 ) ,an dth at th e Comp l ai n th asal l eg eds u ffi ci en t factses tab l i s h i n ga con s p i racy for p u rp os esof Secti on1 9 8 5 ( 2 )an d( 3 ) .( Doc. No. 2 1at 2 2 : 7 2 6 : 9 . ) Asto th e former, Secti on 1 9 8 5 ( 1 ) sp rotecti on sex ten d ex cl u s i v el y to th e b en efi t of fed eraloffi cers . Jacobson v. Pettersson,No.CV6 1 1 1 7 ,2 0 0 7 U. S. Di s t.LEXI S1 4 9 5 2 ,at * 1 9( W. D.W as h .M ar.2 ,2 0 0 7 ) . Wh i l e Stu art d es cri b es h i ms el f as an offi cer of th e fed eralcou rts , a p arty an d wi tn es si n th e DUE COURSE OFJ USTI CE, an da fed eral l aw p racti ti on er, ( Doc. No. 2 1at 2 3 : 2 0 2 8 ) , s u chch aracteri z ati on sd on ot ren d er Stu art a fed eral offi cer for p u rp os esof Secti on 1 9 8 5 ( 1 ) . Jacobson,2 0 0 7U. S.Di s t.LEXI S1 4 9 5 2 ,at * 1 9 2 0( l awyer l i cen s edto p racti ce i n fed eralj u ri s d i cti on sn ot a fed eraloffi cer for p u rp os es of Secti on 1 9 8 5 ( 1 ) ) . Becau s e Stu art d oesn ot an d can n ot al l eg e h e i san emp l oyee of th e fed eralg ov ern men t,or th at h ei sau th ori z edto p erform an y offi ci alfed erald u ti es ,
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
8-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
h i sSecti on1 9 8 5 ( 1 )cl ai ms h ou l db ed i s mi s s ed .Id. Wi th reg ard to th e Secti on 1 9 8 5 ( 2 )an d( 3 )cl ai ms ,th e Comp l ai n t fai l sto al l eg e facts wi th s u ffi ci en t p arti cu l ari ty s h owi n g a con s p i racy i n v ol v i n g an y Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an t.See Garcia, 2 0 1 3U. S. Di s t. LEXI S1 3 5 9 9 8 , at * 3 .Th e Comp l ai n t scon cl u s ory al l eg ati on th at th e4 9d efen d an ts con s p i red tog eth er i n commi tti n gth es ocal l ed Stu art As s au l ti si n s u ffi ci en t.( See Comp l . 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 , 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 ) , Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 8 3 9F . 2 d6 2 1 , 6 2 6( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 8 ) . Th e ab s en ce of s u chfactu alal l eg ati on swarran tsth ed i s mi s s alof Stu art s Secti on1 9 8 5an d1 9 8 6cl ai ms . H. THE CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
Th e Comp l ai n t s ci v i l ri g h ts cl ai ms s h ou l d al s o b e d i s mi s s ed u n d er Cal i forn i a stwoyear l i mi tati on sp eri odfor p ers on ali n j u ry cl ai ms .( See Doc.No. 1 6 1at 1 6 : 3 2 3 . )Stu art attemp tsto ci rcu mv en t th es tatu te of l i mi tati on sb y arg u i n g th at certai ncou n tsi nth e Comp l ai n t are s u b j ect to a l on g er l i mi tati on sp eri od , ( Doc. No.2 1 at 2 6 : 1 8 2 2( ci ti n g Cal .Cod e Ci v .P roc. 3 3 7 ( 1 )( fou ryear l i mi tati on s p eri odfor b reachof wri ttencon tract) ; Cal . Cod e Ci v . P roc. 3 3 8 ( a) , ( d )( th reeyear l i mi tati on sp eri odfor acti on sb as edu p on al i ab i l i ty createdb ys tatu teor frau d ) , an d th at h e s h ou l db e g i v en l eav e to amen d to al l eg e factsrel ati n g to eq u i tab l e es top p el an ds tatu tory tol l i n g , ( Doc. No. 2 1at 2 6 : 2 2 2 3 ) . Asto th e ap p l i cab l es tatu te of l i mi tati on s ,Ni n th Ci rcu i t cas el aw mak esi t cl ear th at Secti on1 9 8 3cl ai msare s u b j ect to th e foru ms tate ss tatu te of l i mi tati on s for p ers on al i n j u ry torts , wh i chi stwo yearsi nCal i forn i a. Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates v. City of Morgan Hill, 3 5 3F . 3 d6 5 1 , 6 5 5n . 2( 9 thCi r. 2 0 0 3 ) ; Usher v. City of Los Angeles,8 2 8F . 2 d5 5 6 ,5 5 8( 9 thCi r.1 9 8 7 ) ;Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,9 9 3F . 2 d7 1 0 ,7 1 1 1 2( 9 thCi r.1 9 9 3 ) ;Cal .Cod e Ci v .P roc.3 3 5 . 1 . Gi v en Cou n ts1 th rou g h1 9 al lp u rp ort to as s ert ci v i lri g h tscl ai msu n d er 4 2 U. S. C.
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
9-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
5 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 8 5 , an d1 9 8 6 , th es e cl ai msare s u b j ect to a twoyear s tatu te of l i mi tati on s .
Wi threg ardto Stu art sreq u es t for l eav e to amen dth e Comp l ai n t to i n cl u d e facts es tab l i s h i n g eq u i tab l e es top p elan ds tatu tory tol l i n g ,Stu art s meet an d con ferl etter,al b ei ti n ap p rop ri ate for con s i d erati on ,i n d i catesth at Stu art s eek sto ad d factsrel ati n g to h i sal l eg ed con fi n emen t from Ap ri l1 5 ,2 0 1 0 ,u n ti lM ay 1 5 , 2 0 1 3 ,i naneffort to i n v ok ev ari ou sCal i forn i ap ri s on er tol l i n gs tatu tes .( See Cal . Cod e Ci v . P roc. 3 5 2 . 1 ( tol l i n gs tatu te u n ti lafter p ri s on er i srel eas edi fp ri s on er i s
6 i mp ri s on ed at th e ti me th e cau s e of acti on accru ed ) . Stu art sad mi s s i on i n th e
Comp l ai n t th at h e was rel eas ed after th e s ocal l ed Stu art As s au l t, h owev er, u n d ermi n esan y ap p l i cati on of p ri s on er tol l i n g . ( Comp l . 1 3 6 . ) Becau s e th e s tatu te of l i mi tati on ss tartsto ru non ce th ei mp ri s on men t ceas es ,an dtol l i n gi sn ot rei n s tatedb ys u b s eq u en ti n carcerati on , Stu art sci v i lri g h tscl ai msb as edonth es ocal l ed Stu art As s au l tb eg anto accru e onAp ri l 1 5 , 2 0 1 0 , an dare th u sti meb arred . See Cal . Cod e Ci v .P roc. 3 5 2 . 1 ;Boag v. Chief of Police, 6 6 9F . 2 d5 8 7 , 5 8 8( 9 th Ci r. 1 9 8 2 )( d i s ab i l i ty of i mp ri s on men t ceas esu p onrel eas e) ;Williams v. Coughlan, 2 4 4F . 2 d6 , 8( 9 thCi r. 1 9 5 7 )( s tatu te b eg i n sto ru nafter p ri s on er i srel eas ed ) . I. STUARTS CLAIMS RELATING TO JUDGES WOHLFEIL AND SCHALLS CONDUCT IN HIS DISSOLUTION PROCEEDING ARE BARRED BY THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2
To th e ex ten t th at th e Comp l ai n t attack sd eci s i on san dth e con d u ct of J u d g es W oh l fei lan dSch al li nStu art sd i s s ol u ti onp roceed i n g ,s u chcl ai msal s os h ou l db e
5
2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
Oth er th anStu art si mp rop er referen ce to h i s1 0 5 p ag e,s i n g l es p ace meet an d con fer l etter, Stu art fai l sto i d en ti fy wh at cou n tsare p u rp orted l ys u b j ect to a d i fferen tl i mi tati on sp eri od . Th e Comp l ai n t d oesn ot as s ert an y factss u ffi ci en t to s tate a cl ai m ag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsfor an y of th e cl ai msfor wh i chStu art rel i esona l on g er l i mi tati on sp eri od ,s u chas b reachof con tract or frau d . 6 Stu art al s o ci tes to Cal i forn i a Cod e of Ci v i lP roced u re s ecti on 3 2 8 . 5 an d Cal i forn i a Gov ern men t Cod es ecti on9 4 5 . 3 ,b othof wh i chh av en o ap p l i cati onto th i sacti on . Th e former tol l sth el i mi tati on sp eri odi nacti on sto recov er realp rop erty, wh i l e th el atter tol l sth es tatu te of l i mi tati on sfor a p ers onch arg edwi tha cri me to fi l e a ci v i l acti onfor p ol i ce mi s con d u ct wh i l e th e cri mi n alch arg es are p en d i n g . Moreov er,p ri s on er tol l i n gu n d er Cal i forn i a Cod e of Ci v i l P roced u re s ecti on 3 5 2 . 1d oes n ot ap p l y to s tate l aw tort cl ai ms ag ai n s t p u b l i c en ti ti es or emp l oyees , s u chasth e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts .Cal . Cod e Ci v . P roc. 3 5 2 . 1 ( b ) .
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
-1 0-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
d i s mi s s edu n d er th e Rooker-Feldman d octri n e. ( Doc.No.1 6 1at 1 8 : 2 1 9 : 1 . )I n h i sop p os i ti on , Stu art arg u esth at Rooker-Feldman d oesn ot ap p l yb ecau s eh ei sn ot ch al l en g i n gan y ap p eal ab l ed eci s i onreg ard i n gch i l dcu s tod y or s p ou s al s u p p ort, an d th at s u ch ord ersare n ot fi n al .( Doc.No.2 1 at 2 7 : 2 0 2 8 : 2 . ) Rooker-Feldman, h owev er, ap p l i esto i n terl ocu tory ord ers , aswel l asfi n al j u d g men ts .Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano,2 5 2F . 3 d1 0 2 6 ,1 0 3 0( 9 th Ci r.2 0 0 1 ) . Th e RookerFeldman d octri n e th erefore s u p p ortsth e d i s mi s s alof Cou n ts1 8 an d1 9 of th e Comp l ai n t. J. STUARTS FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM UNDER THE LANHAM ACT IS UNTENABLE
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
Th e fal s e ad v erti s i n g cl ai m al s o i ss u b j ect to d i s mi s s ald u e to P l ai n ti ffs fai l u re an di n ab i l i ty to al l eg e factss h owi n g th at th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts commerci al l y comp ete wi th Stu art. ( See Doc.No.1 6 1 at 1 9 : 2 2 0 : 1 . ) I nh i s op p os i ti on , Stu art s u g g es tsth at th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsare l i ab l e for al l eg ed mi s rep res en tati on s reg ard i n g l eg al an d foren s i c p s ych ol og y s erv i ces mad e th rou g h th ei r op erati on of th e cou rt an di n th e ad v erti s emen tsof cod efen d an ts . ( Doc. No. 2 1at 2 8 : 1 4 3 0 : 6 . ) Asto th e former,Stu art can n ot s eri ou s l y con ten dh e comp eteswi th th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsi nj u d i ci alop erati on s .I n d eed ,th e j u d i ci al p ower of th e State of Cal i forn i ai sv es tedon l yi nth e Su p reme Cou rt, cou rts of ap p eal , an ds u p eri or cou rts . Cal . Con s t. art. VI , 1 .Stu art an dth ep ers on sfor wh i ch h e ad v ocatesare l i ti g an tsi n th e Su p eri or Cou rt,wh i ch i si n s u ffi ci en t to es tab l i s ha comp eti ti v ei n j u ry for p u rp os esof fal s e ad v erti s i n gu n d er th e Lan h am Act. See Barrus v. Sylvania,5 5F . 3 d4 6 8 ,4 7 0( 9 th Ci r.1 9 9 5 )( l i g h t b u l b con s u mersl ack eds tan d i n gto b ri n gfal s e ad v erti s i n gcl ai m ag ai n s t man u factu rer) . Stu art sattemp t to i mp os ej oi n t tortfeas or l i ab i l i ty ag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsb as edoncod efen d an ts al l eg edmi s rep res en tati on si sal s o mi s p l aced . ( Doc.No.2 1 at 2 9 : 6 3 0 : 6 . ) J oi n t tortfeas or l i ab i l i ty i sav ai l ab l e on l y wh en th e d efen d an t h as k n owi n g l y p arti ci p ated i n th e creati on ,d ev el op men t, an d
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
-1 1-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
p rop ag ati onof th e fal s e ad v erti s i n gcamp ai g n . In re Century 21-Re/Max, 8 8 2F .Su p p .9 1 5 ,9 2 5( C. D.Cal .1 9 9 4 ) . P ers on all i ab i l i ty ex ten d son l y to th os ep ers on swh o acti v el yp arti ci p ate asa mov i n gforce i nth ed eci s i onto en g ag e i n th ei n fri n g i n g actsor oth erwi s e cau s e th e i n fri n g emen t asa wh ol e to occu r. Parker v. Google, Inc.,4 2 2F .Su p p .2 d4 9 2 ,5 0 3( E. D.P a.2 0 0 6 )( n o ai d er an d ab etterl i ab i l i ty u n d er th e Lan h am Act) . I nord er to rel yu p ona th eory of j oi n ttortfeas or l i ab i l i ty u n d er th e Lan h am Act, P l ai n ti ffsmu s t offer s p eci fi c factswh i ch Defen d an t cou l dd en y. W. Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.,No.CV 1 1 3 4 7 3 , 2 0 1 2U. S. Di s t. LEXI S1 0 9 9 2 7 , at * 2 2( C. D. Cal . J u l . 3 1 , 2 0 1 2 ) . Becau s e th e Comp l ai n td oesn ot an dcan n ot al l eg e an y factses tab l i s h i n gth e req u i s i te p arti ci p ati onfor an y Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an t, cou p l edwi thth e ab s en ce of an y av ermen tsth at an y cod efen d an tscommerci al l y comp ete wi thStu art, Stu art can n ot i mp os ej oi n t tortfeas or l i ab i l i ty ag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts . K. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO STATE A CIVIL RICO ACTION AGAINST THE SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4
Th e Comp l ai n tn ex tp u rp ortsto as s ert 1 3ci v i l RI CO cl ai msu n d er 1 8U. S. C.

7 1 9 6 2 ( c) ,1 2 of wh i ch n ame certai n Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an tsasd efen d an ts .
( Comp l . 3 4 5 3 7 4 . ) Con trary to Stu art sop p os i ti on , th e Comp l ai n td oesn ot an d can n ot al l eg e factss u ffi ci en t to es tab l i s hth e ex i s ten ce of a RI CO en terp ri s e, an d
8 a p atternof rack eteeri n gacti v i ty. ( See Doc. No. 1 6 1at 2 0 : 2 2 1 : 8 . )
To meet th e en terp ri s eel emen t,Stu art p oi n tsto h i sal l eg ati on sreg ard i n g th e ex i s ten ce of th e Domes ti c Di s p u te I n d u s try Cri mi n alEn terp ri s e ( DDI CE) . ( Doc. No. 2 1at 3 1 : 9 1 2 ;see Comp l . 2 7 . ) Ab s en t from th e Comp l ai n t, h owev er,
7
2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
Th e Comp l ai n t al s o referen ces1 8U. S. C. 1 9 6 2 ( d ) , wh i chmak esi tu n l awfu lto con s p i re to v i ol ate Secti on1 9 6 2 ( c) . 8 I t s h ou l d al s o b e n oted th at th e Ni n th Ci rcu i t h as ap p l i ed Ru l e 9 ( b ) sp arti cu l ari ty req u i remen tsto RI CO cl ai msu n d er Secti on1 9 6 2 . Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc.,8 8 5 F . 2 d5 3 1 ,5 4 1( 9 th Ci r.1 9 8 9 ) ;see also Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright,8 6 2F . 2 d1 3 8 8 , 1 3 9 2 9 3( 9 thCi r. 1 9 8 8 )( d i s mi s s i n gRI CO cl ai mb ecau s e th e al l eg ati on sof p red i cate actsi nth e comp l ai n t were en ti rel y g en eral , an d n o s p eci fi csof ti me,p l ace,or n atu re of th e al l eg ed commu n i cati on sare p l ead ed ) .
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
-1 2-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
are an y al l eg ati on s con cern i n g an y i n d i v i d u al Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an t s p arti ci p ati oni nth i sp u rp orted en terp ri s e. F or th e rack eteeri n gacti v i tyel emen t, Stu art sop p os i ti on referen cesth e Comp l ai n t sci tati on to n u merou scri mesu n d er Ti tl e1 8 .( Doc.No.2 1at 3 1 : 2 1 3 2 : 6 . ) Ag ai n ,h owev er,th e Comp l ai n td oesn ot an dcan n ot al l eg e an y factss p eci fyi n gth e con d u ct of an yi n d i v i d u al Su p eri or Cou rt
9 Defen d an t th at amou n tsto a cri mi n al act, l et al on ea p attern of cri me.
Stu art sattemp t to tran s p os e RI CO l i ab i l i ty from U.S. v. Frega, 1 7 9F . 3 d7 9 3 ( 9 thCi r.1 9 9 9 )to th i scas ei scarel es san dmi s g u i d ed .I n Frega,wh ere two l ocal s u p eri or cou rt j u d g eswere al l eg edto h av e recei v edb ri b esfrom anattorn ey i nord er to ob tai nanu n fai r ad v an tag ei nth e cas esov er wh i chth ej u d g esp res i d ed , ag ran d j u ry retu rn ed an i n d i ctmen t i n1 9 9 6 th at i n cl u d ed ch arg es of a con s p i racy to con d u ct th e affai rsof th es u p eri or cou rt th rou g ha p atternof rack eteeri n gacti v i ty con s i s ti n g of b ri b ery an d ex torti on . Id. at 7 9 8 9 9 . Th e ch arg esi n Frega h av e n oth i n gto d o wi thth e attackmou n tedag ai n s t th e fami l yl aw commu n i tyi nth i s acti on . Stu art s RI CO cl ai ms ag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts are u n s u p p ortab l e an ds h ou l db ed i s mi s s ed . L. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT STUART HAS STANDING TO PURSUE PROSPECTIVE RELIEF
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
F i n al l y,to h av e s tan d i n g to ob tai ni n j u n cti v e an dd ecl aratory rel i ef,i t i s u n con trov erted th at Stu art mu s t d emon s trate a realor i mmed i ate th reat th at d efen d an tswi l lag ai ns u b j ect h i m to [ th eh arm comp l ai n ed of] . B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist.,1 9 2F . 3 d1 2 6 0 ,1 2 6 4( 9 th Ci r.1 9 9 9 ) ;see also City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 4 6 1U. S. 9 5 , 1 1 1( 1 9 8 3 ) ; Kruse v. Hawaii, 6 8F . 3 d3 3 1 , 3 3 5( 9 th Ci r.1 9 9 5 ) . Stu art sas s erti on th at h e an d oth ers remai n at j eop ard y for fu rth er i n j u ryi scon cl u s ory an dl ack san y factu alb as i s .( See Doc.No.2 1 at 3 3 : 1 1 2 . )
Stu art sRI CO cl ai m ag ai n s t th e Su p eri or Cou rt al s o fai l sb ecau s e g ov ern men t en ti ti es are i n cap ab l e of formi n ga mal i ci ou si n ten t. Lancaster Community Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 9 4 0F . 2 d3 9 7 , 4 0 4( 9 thCi r. 1 9 9 1 )( rej ecti n gRI CO cl ai m ag ai n s th os p i tal d i s tri ct) .
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
-1 3-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
Th at Stu art i ss u b j ect to p u n i s h men t for v i ol ati onof al l eg ed l yi l l eg al ord ersen tered i nh i sd i s s ol u ti on p roceed i n g al s o can n ot s u p p ort an y p ros p ecti v e rel i ef cl ai ms . Becau s es u chcl ai mscon s ti tu te anattackons tate cou rt d eci s i on s ,th ey are b arred u n d er th e Rooker-Feldman d octri n e. III. CONCLUSION F or th e reas on ss et forthab ov e an di nth e Su p eri or Cou rt Defen d an ts i n i ti al mov i n gp ap ers , th e Cou rt s h ou l dg ran t th e moti onto d i s mi s s . Dated : Decemb er 1 2 , 2 0 1 3 BESTBEST& KRI EGER LLP
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
By: / s /M atth ew L. Green J AM ES B. GI LP I N M ATTHEW L. GREEN Attorn eysfor Defen d an ts SUP ERI OR COURTOF CALI F ORNI A, COUNTY OFSAN DI EGO ( erron eou s l ys u edas SUP ERI OR COURTOFSAN DI EGO COUNTY) ; HON. ROBERT J . TRENTACOSTA, P res i d i n gJ u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt ( erron eou s l y s u edasRob ert J . Tren tacos ts a) ; MI CHAELM . RODDY, Ex ecu ti v e Offi cer of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. LI SA SCHALL, J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. LORNA A. ALKSNE, J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. CHRI STI NEK. GOLDSM I TH, J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. J EANNI ELOW E, Commi s s i on er of th e Su p eri or Cou rt ( Ret. ) ; HON. WI LLI AM H. M cADAM , J R. , J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; HON. EDLENEC. M cKENZI E, Commi s s i on er of th e Su p eri or Cou rt; an dHON. J OELR. W OHLF EI L, J u d g e of th e Su p eri or Cou rt
-1 4-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Th eu n d ers i g n edh ereb y certi fi esth at al lcou n s elof recordwh o are d eemed to h av e con s en ted to el ectron i c s erv i ce are b ei n gs erv ed wi th a cop y of th i s d ocu men t v i a th e cou rt sCM ECF s ys tem p er F ed eralRu l e of Ci v i lP roced u re 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( E) . An y oth er cou n s elof recordwi l lb es erv edb y facs i mi l e tran s mi s s i on an d / or fi rs t cl as smai l th i s1 2 thd ay of Decemb er 2 0 1 3 .
/ s / M atth ew L. Green _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8
2 5 5 0 8 . 0 0 0 8 6 \ 8 3 9 2 1 8 6 . 3
-1 5-

70 Judges' Reply To Judges' Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

70 Judges' Reply To Judges' Motion To Dismiss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 1 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 2 of 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 3 of 21

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 4 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 5 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 6 of 21

Cal . Ru l esof Ct. , ru l e1 0 . 8 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 7 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 8 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 9 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 10 of 21

2 Cafasso, 6 3 7F . 3 dat 1 0 5 8 , th e Cou rt s h ou l dd i s mi s sth e Comp l ai n tu n d er Ru l e8 .

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 11 of 21

PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST MR. RODDY ARE BARRED BY QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 12 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 13 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 14 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 15 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 16 of 21

5 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 8 5 , an d1 9 8 6 , th es e cl ai msare s u b j ect to a twoyear s tatu te of l i mi tati on s .

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 17 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 18 of 21

Th e Comp l ai n tn ex tp u rp ortsto as s ert 1 3ci v i l RI CO cl ai msu n d er 1 8U. S. C.

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 19 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 20 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 12/12/13 Page 21 of 21

REP LY TO OP P N TO M OT. TO DI SM I SS 1 3 cv 1 9 4 4 CAB ( BLM )

You might also like