1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RICHARD I. FINE Prisoner ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION RICHARD I. FINE, Plaintiff, vs. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; SCOTT DREXEL, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California; and THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA (only as a necessary party); Defendants. Case No. CV-10-0048 JFW (CW) PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO STATE BAR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants SCOTT DREXEL (Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California) served 2/10/10 with Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, the STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA served 2/18/10, and the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA served 2/18/10 (collectively hereinafter referred to as the “State Bar Defendants”) have only filed the Declaration of Tracey

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

McCormick in response to the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and a Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) in response to the OSC. The RJN consisted of:
A.

The State Bar Court’s 9/29/08 Recommendation for Disbarment,

(as the State Bar Court is neither a court of record under the California Constitution nor an administrative agency under California law, and the State Bar Court judges act “in the stead of the Board of Governors” of the State Bar as set forth in the State Bar Act codified in the California Business and Professions Code);
B.

The 2/11/09 Denial of Petition for Review, Denial of Application

of Stay, Denial of CCP § 425.16 Motion to Dismiss, and a pro forma Order of Disbarment based upon the denial of Petition for Review pursuant to California Rules of Court with Justice Werdegar not participating; and
C.

The 3/25/09 denial of the “Motion to Dismiss NDC for Bias,” the

denial of the “Motion to Dismiss NDC for Illegal Action” and the denial of the Petition for Rehearing. The State Bar defendants did not file any memorandum of points and authorities or legal brief. The Declaration of Tracey McCormick (“McCormick Declaration”) admitted that she did not e-mail the Notice of Motion and Motion on behalf of Scott Drexel (which was due on 3/2/10), the State Bar of California and the

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Board of Governors of the State Bar of California (which were due on 3/10/10 to her secretary until March 11, 2010. (McCormick Declaration, page 1, lines 1516). This was nine days after Scott Drexel’s response was due and one day after the Sate Bar of California and the Board of Governors of the Sate Bar of California’s responses were due. The McCormick Declaration showed that Tracey McCormick did not draft or e-mail any memorandum of points and authorities to accompany the March 11 e-mail of the Notice of Motion and the Motion to her secretary. The McCormick Declaration claimed that Tracey McCormick “erroneously calculated” the due date of all the responses to be filed 3/19/10. (McCormick Declaration, page 1, lines 12-13). This statement was a blatant fraud on the Court. Since there were two separate due dates, 3/2/10 and 3/10/10, it was impossible to combine them into one due date, unless such date was 3/2/10, the shorter of the time frames. Additionally, the date of 3/19/10, which Tracey McCormick stated was her “calculated date”, did not have any relationship to the 20-day response times for the State Bar defendants; it was 17 days beyond the 3/2/10 response date for Scott Drexel and 9 days beyond the response date for the State Bar of California and the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California. Further, Tracey McCormick is an experienced Federal litigator. She

opposed Plaintiff in the case of Fine v. State Bar, et al, USDC case no. CV 08

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2906 JFW (CW). She knew that the response time to a summons and complaint is 20 days, as she had complied with such in the earlier case by filing the identical motion on behalf of the identical parties and the State Bar Court judges. She lost the motion. Thus, she also knew that, under the principles of “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel”, a motion to dismiss such as the one she filed could not be brought. Further, she knew that such motion was frivolous and only meant to harass and delay, even if it were timely, as case precedent holds that state entities may be sued in Federal Court to obtain injunctive relief. The McCormick Declaration also fraudulently stated the State Bar Defendants’ filing to be a “Notice of Motion and Motion” (McCormick Declaration, page 1, line 21) when the actual filing was a “Re-Notice of Motion and Motion”, leading one to believe that a previous motion existed when such was not true. Finally, the McCormick Declaration did not address that fact that, prior to the Court issuing the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff had responded to the State Bar Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and filed a Motion to Strike such Motion to Dismiss. The McCormick Declaration did not respond to any of the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss, even though the OSC referred to the State Bar Defendants’ failure to respond to such.

-4-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The failure of the State Bar Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is an admission of the propriety of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and a consent to striking State Bar Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and entering the default against the State Bar Defendants. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the State Bar Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be stricken, and that a default immediately be entered against the State Bar Defendants based upon the facts set forth in the Verified Complaint and as prayed for therein. Dated this 30th day of April, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

BY: ____________________________ RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

-5-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above-entitled action. On May 3, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO STATE BAR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:
Lawrence C. Yee Mark Torres-Gil Tracey L. McCormick STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-1639

Michael Van Loewenfeldt KERR & WAGSTAFF, LLP 100 Spear Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1528

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 3rd day of May, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez, California.

____________________________________ FRED SOTTILE

-6-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful