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
25508.00086\8711008.1
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
JAMES B. GILPIN, Bar No. 151466
James.Gilpin@bbklaw.com
MATTHEW L. GREEN, Bar No. 227904
Matthew.Green@bbklaw.com
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 W. Broadway, 15th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-1300
Facsimile: (619) 233-6118
Attorneys for Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO (erroneously sued as SUPERIOR
COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY); HON.
ROBERT J. TRENTACOSTA, Presiding Judge of
the Superior Court (erroneously sued as Robert J.
Trentacosta); MICHAEL M. RODDY, Executive
Officer of the Superior Court; JUDICIAL
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA; HON. STEVEN
JAHR, Administrative Director of the Courts;
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS;
HON. TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Chief Justice
of California; HON. LISA SCHALL, Judge of the
Superior Court; HON. LORNA A. ALKSNE, Judge
of the Superior Court; HON. CHRISTINE K.
GOLDSMITH, Judge of the Superior Court; HON.
JEANNIE LOWE, Commissioner of the Superior
Court (Ret.); HON. WILLIAM H. McADAM, JR.,
Judge of the Superior Court; HON. EDLENE C.
McKENZIE, Commissioner of the Superior Court;
HON. JOEL R. WOHLFEIL, Judge of the Superior
Court; HON. MICHAEL GROCH, Judge of the
Superior Court; and KRISTINE P. NESTHUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Date: June 27, 2014
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 4C
[NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
REQUESTED BY COURT]
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 18
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
- i -
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
I. LEGAL STANDARD...................................................................................1
II. ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................3
A. THE FILING OF A 1,600-PAGE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF RULE 8 AND THIS
COURTS PRIOR DISMISSAL ORDER WARRANTS THE
IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ........................................................3
B. THE ASSERTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
CLAIMS BASED ON DEMANDS TO REMOVE CERTAIN
JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS HOME ADDRESSES FROM
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT VIOLATES RULE 11.....................5
C. THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS
ARE UNWARRANTED UNDER THE ELEVENTH
AMENDMENT AND THUS VIOLATE RULE 11............................6
D. THE CLEAR APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
RENDERS PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST JUDICIAL
OFFICERS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 11........................................7
E. THE PRESENTATION OF UNTIMELY CLAIMS ALSO
VIOLATES RULE 11.........................................................................8
F. THE PURSUIT OF CLAIMS CLEARLY BARRED BY THE
ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE ALSO VIOLATES RULE
11........................................................................................................9
G. THE ASSERTION OF A FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM
ALSO SUBJECTS PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL TO
SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11 .......................................................9
H. THE FILING OF RICO CLAIMS ALSO SUPPORTS THE
IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11........................10
I. THE PRESENTATION OF PROSPECTIVE RELIEF CLAIMS
ALSO VIOLATES RULE 11 ...........................................................10
J. PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSELS VIOLATIONS OF RULE
11 WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ....................11
III. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 12
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -ii-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Action Apartment Assn, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control
509 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2007).............................................................................8
Ashelman v. Pope
793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) .............................................................7
B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist.
192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999)...........................................................................10
Borchardt v. Reid
No. CV 08-3086, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91363 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31,
2008 (AOC)).......................................................................................................7
Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enters.
498 U.S. 533 (1991)............................................................................................2
Carmona v. Carmona
603 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2010).............................................................................9
Chapman & Cole v. Itel Container Intl B.V.
865 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1989).............................................................................10
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.
496 U.S. 384 (1990)............................................................................................1
Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (1983)............................................................................................9
Doe & Assoc. Law Offices v. Napolitano
252 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2001).............................................................................9
Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York
762 F.2d 243 (2nd Cir. 1985)..............................................................................2
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.
356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004)...........................................................................10
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.
544 U.S. 280 (2005)............................................................................................9
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 3 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -iii-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
Franceschi v. Schwartz
57 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1995).................................................................................6
Gaskell v. Weir
10 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 1993)...............................................................................11
Greater Los Angeles Council of Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin
812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987).............................................................................6
Jurin v. Google, Inc.
695 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ...............................................................9
Mahaley v. Mapes
Case No. EDCV 12-01896, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65897 (C.D.
Cal. Apr. 16, 2013) .............................................................................................7
McDougal v. County of Imperial
942 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1991)...............................................................................8
Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hospital
844 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1988)...............................................................................8
Mireles v. Waco
502 U.S. 9 (1991) (per curiam) ...........................................................................7
Monteagudo v. Alksne
Case No. 11-CV-1089, at 4:4-7:9, 8:2-21 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2011)
(Gonzalez, J.)....................................................................................................10
Mullis v. United States Bankr. Ct.
828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987).............................................................................7
Oliver v. Placer Superior Court
2:12-cv-2655, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82627 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10,
2013) ..................................................................................................................7
Patterson v. Aiken
841 F.2d 386 (11th Cir. 1988).............................................................................2
Salstrom v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc.
74 F.3d 183 (9th Cir. 1996).................................................................................4
Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court
318 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).........................................................................6, 7
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 4 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -iv-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
Stephens v. Marino
Case No. C10-5820, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116531 (W.D. Wash.
Oct. 7, 2011) ...................................................................................................4, 5
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
317 F.3d 1097,1107-1108 (9th Cir. 2003).........................................................10
Womack v. Metro. Transit Sys.
Case No. 09cv2679, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41739 (S.D. Cal. Apr.
28, 2010) (Moskowitz, J.) ...................................................................................6
Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles
780 F.2d 823 (9th Cir. 1986) (overruled on other grounds by Cooter
& Gell)................................................................................................................2
State Cases
Olsen v. Harbison
119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 460 (Ct. App. 2010) ................................................................6
Federal Statutes
28 U.S.C. 1927................................................................................................4, 10
State Statutes
Cal. Civ. Code 47..................................................................................................6
Cal. Gov. Code 6254.21........................................................................................6
Rules
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.......................................1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 5 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -1-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
Defendants Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, erroneously
sued as Superior Court of San Diego County (Superior Court), and
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) respectfully submit the following
memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion for sanctions
against Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children (CCFC) and
Colbern C. Stuart (Stuart) (collectively, Plaintiffs), and Dean Browning Webb,
the Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb, and Eric W. Ching (collectively,
Counsel) in the amount of $5,975.00 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
and Local Civil Rule 83.1.
1
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part:
By presenting to the court a pleading an attorney or
unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the
persons knowledge, information and belief, formed after
an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose,
such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims are warranted by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or
reversing existing law or for establishing new law; [and]
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery[.]
As recognized by the United States Supreme Court, [i]t is now clear the
central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in District Court and thus
streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts. Cooter & Gell
v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 392 (1990) (superseded by statute on other
1
The Superior Court and AOC are cognizant that Mr. Ching has moved to withdraw as
counsel for CCFC. Given Mr. Chings motion has not yet been granted and remains pending, Mr.
Ching is included with this motion for sanctions.
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 6 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -2-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
grounds). A pleading need not be frivolous as a whole to violate Rule 11(b). Rule
11 is violated where it is shown that the Rule was violated as to a portion of a
pleading, even though it was not violated as to other portions. Patterson v. Aiken,
841 F.2d 386, 387 (11th Cir. 1988).
Rule 11 is violated if the paper filed in district court and signed by an
attorney or an unrepresented party is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without
factual foundation, even if the paper was not filed in subjective bad faith.
Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (overruled on
other grounds by Cooter & Gell). The Rule 11 certification imposes an
affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before
filing[.] Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enters., 498 U.S.
533, 550 (1991). A pleading is not warranted by law under Rule 11(b)(2) where it
is patently clear that a claim has absolutely no chance of success under the existing
precedents, and no reasonable argument can be advanced to extend, modify or
reverse the law as it stands . Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 762
F.2d 243, 254 (2nd Cir. 1985). The applicable standard to determine whether Rule
11 is violated is one of reasonableness under the circumstances. Business
Guides, 498 U.S. at 550.
Where a court determines that Rule 11 has been violated, the court may
impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the
rule or is responsible for the violation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). The nature of the
sanction is limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable
conduct by others similarly situated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). The sanction may
include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed
on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the
movant of part or all of the reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses directly
resulting from the violation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4).
/ / /
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 7 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -3-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
The Local Civil Rules for this Court also provide for the imposition of
sanctions under certain enumerated events. Local Civil Rule 83.1 states in pertinent
part:
a. Failure of counsel or of any party to comply with these
rules, with the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal
Procedure, or with any order of the court may be ground
for imposition by the court of any and all sanctions
authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power
of the court, including, without limitation, dismissal of
any actions, entry of default, finding of contempt,
imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys fees and
costs, and other lesser sanctions.
b. For violations of these Local Rules or of a specific
court order, the court may, in imposing monetary
sanctions, order that the monetary sanctions be paid to the
nonappropriated fund of the court.
II.
ARGUMENT
A. THE FILING OF A 1,600-PAGE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF RULE 8 AND THIS
COURTS PRIOR DISMISSAL ORDER WARRANTS THE
IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
Plaintiffs original Complaint in this action consisted of 175 pages, plus
1,156 pages of exhibits, for a total of roughly 1,331 pages. (Doc. No. 1; Doc. No.
88 at 7:7-8.) Among other grounds, this Court dismissed the original Complaint for
failure to comply with Rule 8, finding that the pleading was confusing, redundant,
conclusory, and burie[d] its factual allegations in pages of general grievances about
the family courts. (Doc. No. 88 at 7:10-12.) The Court further found the
prolixity and inscrutability of the Complaint to be unduly prejudicial to the
defendants and unmanageable for the court. (Doc. No. 88 at 7:12-25.) While
Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend, the Court expressly directed that any
amended pleading be without unnecessary verbiage, argument, and rhetoric.
(Doc. No. 88 at 9:6.)
/ / /
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 8 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -4-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
Not only does the First Amended Complaint (FAC) still violate Rule 8, but
the FAC is worse than the original Complaint. The body of the FAC is now 251
pages, approximately 75 pages longer than the original Complaint, and with 13
appendices of exhibits, the FAC totals roughly 1,600 pages. (Doc. No. 90.) The
filing of such a pleading also reflects an utter disregard for this Courts order
dismissing the original Complaint. (Doc. No. 88.)
The propriety of sanctions in this action is also bolstered by what appears to
be Mr. Webbs modus operandi in drafting pleadings. In Salstrom v. Citicorp
Credit Services, Inc., 74 F.3d 183 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
award of sanctions against Mr. Webb under 28 U.S.C. 1927.
2
Based on the
number and length of the pleadings, the timing involved in many of the filings, and
the substance of the claims asserted[,] the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
courts finding of bad faith, as Mr. Webb convert[ed] a simple, straightforward
debt collection action into a full-fledged assault[.] Salstrom, 74 F.3d at 185.
Mr. Webbs federal practice was also discussed in detail by United States
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle in Stephens v. Marino, Case No. C10-5820, 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116531 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 7, 2011). In Stephens, where Mr.
Webb filed a 319-page complaint and 330-page amended complaint on behalf of
the plaintiff, and was directed by Judge Settle to file a second amended complaint
that would be both simple and plain in accord with the rules and [] not [] [to]
exceed twenty (20) pages [absent good cause], plaintiff filed a motion to recover
Mr. Webbs attorneys fees. In its order granting in part an denying in part the
motion, Judge Settle noted that several district courts have consistently and
repeatedly warned Webb that his litigation practices are improper and
problematic[,] and that despite such warnings, he has often ignored such direction
2
28 U.S.C. 1927 provides: Any attorney who so multiplies the proceedings in any
case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess
costs, expenses, and attorneys fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 9 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -5-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
in the same case and in subsequent case filings for other matters. 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 116531, at *4-7. In light of Plaintiffs and Counsels blatant failure to
comply with Rule 8 and the Courts prior dismissal order in this action, coupled
with Mr. Webbs documented disregard for the same in other actions, sanctions are
appropriate under Rule 11.
B. THE ASSERTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
CLAIMS BASED ON DEMANDS TO REMOVE CERTAIN
JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS HOME ADDRESSES FROM THE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT VIOLATES RULE 11
For no ostensible purpose other than harassment, the original Complaint
contained the residential addresses of five judicial officers: (1) the Honorable Tani
G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of California, (2) the Honorable Robert J.
Trentacosta, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, erroneously sued as Robert J.
Trentacosta, (3) the Honorable Lisa Schall, Judge of the Superior Court, (4) the
Honorable Lorna A. Alksne, Judge of the Superior Court, and (5) the Honorable
Joel R. Wohlfeil, Judge of the Superior Court.
3
(Doc. No. 1, 11, 17, 22, 23, 29.)
Kristine P. Nesthus, the Superior Courts Director of Legal Services and General
Counsel, demanded that such information be removed from the Internet and that
steps be taken to remove the information from PACER. (See Doc. No. 90, 510-
526.)
While the FAC alleges Plaintiffs complied with Ms. Nesthus request [a]s a
courtesy, (Doc. No. 90, 538), the FAC now alleges claims for obstruction of
justice against a group identified as the Nesthus Defendants based on Ms.
Nesthus demands. (FAC 509-550.) As outlined in the Judicial Defendants
supplement to the omnibus motion to dismiss, such claims are devoid of merit on
numerous grounds. (See Doc. No. 139 at 4:1-27.)
/ / /
3
The Complaint also contained the home address of Lawrence J. Simi, Chairperson for the
Commission on Judicial Performance. (Doc. No. 1, 19.)
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 10 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -6-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
First, Plaintiffs lack standing to assert such claims because there is no private
cause of action for obstruction of justice. Womack v. Metro. Transit Sys., Case No.
09cv2679, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41739, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2010)
(Moskowitz, J.). Second, Ms. Nesthus demands were entirely proper, as the
posting of home addresses on the Internet violates California Government Code
section 6254.21, and the inclusion of such information in court filings violates
Section 1(h)(5) of the Courts General Order 550. Finally, Ms. Nesthus
communications are protected by Californias litigation privilege. See Olsen v.
Harbison, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 460, 466-67 (Ct. App. 2010); Cal. Civ. Code 47. In
light of their utter lack of merit, such claims are clearly part of Plaintiffs ongoing
efforts to harass and intimidate the Judicial Defendants in violation of Rule 11.
4
C. THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS ARE
UNWARRANTED UNDER THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
AND THUS VIOLATE RULE 11
As set forth in the omnibus motion, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits
against a state or an arm of the state. (Doc. No. 131-1 at 12:2-12); see also
Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995). Despite Plaintiffs legal
conclusion that the Superior Court and AOC are governments beneath the state
level, (Doc. No. 90, 714), it is well-settled that such entities are arms of the state
and thus enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. Simmons v. Sacramento County
Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (superior courts); Greater Los
4
The Judicial Defendants consist of (1) the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, erroneously sued as Superior Court of San Diego County, (2) the Honorable Robert J.
Trentacosta, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, erroneously sued as Robert J. Trentacosta, (3)
Michael M. Roddy, Executive Officer of the Superior Court, (4) Judicial Council of California,
(5) the Honorable Steven Jahr, Administrative Director of the Courts, (6) Administrative Office
of the Courts, (7) the Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of California, (8) the
Honorable Lisa Schall, Judge of the Superior Court, (9) the Honorable Lorna A. Alksne, Judge of
the Superior Court, (10) the Honorable Christine K. Goldsmith, Judge of the Superior Court, (11)
the Honorable Jeannie Lowe, Commissioner of the Superior Court (Ret.), (12) the Honorable
William H. McAdam, Jr., Judge of the Superior Court, (13) the Honorable Edlene C. McKenzie,
Commissioner of the Superior Court, (14) the Honorable Joel R. Wohlfeil, Judge of the Superior
Court, (15) the Honorable Michael Groch, Judge of the Superior Court, and (16) Kristine P.
Nesthus, the Superior Courts Director of Legal Services and General Counsel.
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 11 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -7-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
Angeles Council of Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987)
(superior courts); Borchardt v. Reid, No. CV 08-3086, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
91363, at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2008 (AOC)). It is also well-established that
Eleventh Amendment immunity bars claims against judges and court employees in
their official capacities, as they are considered arms of the state. Simmons, 318
F.3d at 1161; Oliver v. Placer Superior Court, 2:12-cv-2655, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 82627, at *9-10 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2013); Mahaley v. Mapes, Case No.
EDCV 12-01896, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65897, at * 19 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013).
Given Plaintiffs claims against the Judicial Defendants are not warranted by
existing law, they therefore violate Rule 11.
D. THE CLEAR APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
RENDERS PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST JUDICIAL
OFFICERS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 11
As noted in the Judicial Defendants supplement to the omnibus motion to
dismiss, (see Doc. No. 139 at 3:8-28), judges are generally immune from civil
liability for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacity. Mireles v. Waco,
502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam); Mullis v. United States Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d
1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986)
(en banc). In this Courts order dismissing the original Complaint, the Court
dismissed with prejudice the claims against the defendant judges for damages
arising out of judicial acts within the jurisdiction of their courts. (Doc. No. 88 at
8:2-4 (citing Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075).)
Despite this Courts prior dismissal order, the FAC attempts to continue
prosecuting claims against judges relating to matters shielded by judicial immunity.
For example, Count 3 of the FAC challenges any non-immune acts of the
Honorable Michael Groch, Judge of the Superior Court, in connection with his
handling of the criminal action against Stuart. (Doc. No. 90, 350, 402-403, 417-
419, 425, 443-446, 491-497.) Given the FAC fails to identify any acts of Judge
Groch beyond those exercised in his judicial capacity, and that the claims against
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 12 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -8-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
Judge Groch are thus clearly barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, coupled
with Plaintiffs and Counsels failure to abide by this Courts prior dismissal order,
sanctions should be awarded under Rule 11.
E. THE PRESENTATION OF UNTIMELY CLAIMS ALSO
VIOLATES RULE 11
As outlined in the omnibus motion to dismiss, a central subject of this
litigation relates to the April 15, 2010 San Diego County Bar Association seminar,
at which the FAC alleges Stuart was forcibly removed. (Doc. No. 131-1 at 9:1-
10:27; see also Doc. No. 90, 109, 121-133.) As set forth in the Judicial
Defendants supplement to the omnibus motion, the FAC also challenges the
commencement of criminal proceedings against Stuart, which occurred on March
24, 2010, and the recommendation to use Dr. Stephen M. Doyne as the mediator in
Stuarts dissolution proceeding, which occurred on April 10, 2008, (Doc. No. 139
at 2:15-23; Doc. No. 90, 373-378, 381, 486-489, 808-888).
In this Courts dismissal order, Plaintiffs were admonished that any amended
pleading must heed the statute of limitations for Section 1983 and Section 1985
claims , which is generally two years. (Doc. No. 88 at 8:10-20 (citing Action
Apartment Assn, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control, 509 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.
2007); McDougal v. County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1991).) As
to the claims relating to the Bar Association event and Stuarts dissolution
proceeding, the Court expressly noted that they appear barred by the statute of
limitations. (Doc. No. 88 at 8:17-20.) Because Plaintiffs did not commence this
action until August 20, 2013, and the FAC does not and cannot assert any
allegations to overcome the statute of limitations, sanctions are justified under Rule
11.
5
(See, e.g., Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hospital, 844 F.2d 646, 653 (9th Cir.
5
While Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the statute of limitation with conclusory allegations of
equitable tolling, for the reasons set forth in the omnibus motion to dismiss, the FAC does not and
cannot allege facts that would support tolling of the limitations period. (Doc. No. 131-1 at 9:18-
10:27.)
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 13 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -9-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
1988) (affirming district courts award of sanctions under Rule 11 where plaintiff
brought action in the face of clear authority that each claim was barred by
procedural limitations[,] including the statute of limitations).
F. THE PURSUIT OF CLAIMS CLEARLY BARRED BY THE
ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE ALSO VIOLATES RULE 11
As noted in the omnibus motion to dismiss, the FAC alleges that Plaintiffs
have been subject to illegal court orders and challenges such orders in violation of
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Doc. No. 131-1 at 11:1-26 (citing Exxon Mobil
Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Carmona v. Carmona,
603 F.3d 1041, 1050-1051 (9th Cir. 2010); Doe & Assoc. Law Offices v.
Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001)).) The continuing pursuit of
claims that are precluded under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine violates Rule 11.
G. THE ASSERTION OF A FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM ALSO
SUBJECTS PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL TO SANCTIONS
UNDER RULE 11
As detailed in the omnibus motion to dismiss, plaintiffs in a false advertising
claim under the Lanham Act must plead and prove that they actually and directly
compete with the defendants, among other elements. Jurin v. Google, Inc., 695 F.
Supp. 2d 1117, 1122 (E.D. Cal. 2010); (Doc. No. 131-1 at 14:19-15:19.) Given
Plaintiffs inability to satisfy the competition requirement for false advertising
claims, despite being advised of the same in the last round of motions to dismiss,
(see, e.g., Doc No. 16-1 at 19:13-16, 19:19-20), the FAC continues to maintain a
false advertising claim. (Doc. No. 90, 904-914.) Because there is no factual or
legal support for a Lanham Act action against any Judicial Defendant, Plaintiffs
attempt to assert such a claim violates Rule 11.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 14 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -10-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
H. THE FILING OF RICO CLAIMS ALSO SUPPORTS THE
IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11
The omnibus motion also seeks the dismissal of Plaintiffs claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for failure to statue
facts sufficient to state a claim. (Doc. No. 131-1 at 15:20-16:7.) Namely, there is
a total lack of specificity as to each defendant and the predicate acts as required by
law[,] and Plaintiffs fraud-based RICO claims fail to comply with Rule 9(b)s
heightened pleading standards. (Doc. No. 131-1 at 15:25-16:7 (citing Edwards v.
Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065-1066 (9th Cir. 2004); Vess v. Ciba-Geigy
Corp., 317 F.3d 1097,1107-1108 (9th Cir. 2003)).) Given there is no evidentiary
support for a RICO claim against any Judicial Defendant, Plaintiffs assertion of
RICO claims against the Judicial Defendants violates Rule 11. (See, e g., Chapman
& Cole v. Itel Container Intl B.V., 865 F.2d 676, 685 (5th Cir. 1989) (upholding
district courts sanctions award under Rule 11 in connection with RICO claim).
I. THE PRESENTATION OF PROSPECTIVE RELIEF CLAIMS
ALSO VIOLATES RULE 11
Finally, as set forth in the Judicial Defendants supplement to the omnibus
motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims for prospective relief
because the FAC does not and cannot allege that Plaintiffs are likely to be wronged
in the future by any Judicial Defendant. (Doc. No. 139 at 9:1-10:4); see B.C. v.
Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999). To the extent
Stuart may claim he may be wronged in by future orders in his dissolution
proceeding, any challenge to such orders is not ripe and would otherwise clearly be
barred by the Rooker-Feldman and Younger abstention doctrines. See, e.g., Doc.
No. 11, Monteagudo v. Alksne, Case No. 11-CV-1089, at 4:4-7:9, 8:2-21 (S.D. Cal.
Sep. 6, 2011) (Gonzalez, J.). Plaintiffs attempt to obtain prospective relief is thus
unwarranted under existing law and violates Rule 11.
/ / /
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 15 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -11-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
J. PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSELS VIOLATIONS OF RULE 11
WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
As noted above, Rule 11 authorizes the imposition of an appropriate
sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible
for the violation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). Potential sanctions include an order
directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorneys fees and
other expenses directly resulting from the violation if imposed on motion and
warranted for effective deterrence[.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). Local Civil Rule
83.1(a) similarly permits the imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys fees
and costs[.]
In a case like this, where the [] complaint is the improper pleading, all
attorney fees reasonably incurred in defending against the claims asserted in the
complaint form the proper basis for sanctions. Gaskell v. Weir, 10 F.3d 626, 629
(9th Cir. 1993) (affirming imposition of sanctions where the allegations in support
of a Section 1983 claim were so baseless that the complaint was frivolous). To
defend against the FAC, the Judicial Defendants were forced to incur considerable
expenses to confer and correspond with counsel for the Bar Association regarding
the contents of the omnibus motion to dismiss and review the final omnibus motion,
prepare their supplement to the omnibus motion to dismiss, and draft the instant
motion for sanctions. (Green Decl. 3.) The Judicial Defendants therefore
respectfully request the imposition of monetary sanctions in the form of a fee award
against Plaintiffs and Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,975.00.
(See Green Decl. 3.)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 16 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -12-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the Judicial
Defendants motion for sanctions and award the Judicial Defendants reasonable
attorneys fees in the amount of $5,975.00.
Dated: April 15, 2014 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By: /s/ Matthew L. Green
JAMES B. GILPIN
MATTHEW L. GREEN
Attorneys for Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (erroneously
sued as SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY); HON. ROBERT J.
TRENTACOSTA, Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court (erroneously sued as Robert
J. Trentacosta); MICHAEL M. RODDY,
Executive Officer of the Superior Court;
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA;
HON. STEVEN JAHR, Administrative
Director of the Courts;
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS; HON. TANI G. CANTIL-
SAKAUYE, Chief Justice of California;
HON. LISA SCHALL, Judge of the
Superior Court; HON. LORNA A.
ALKSNE, Judge of the Superior Court;
HON. CHRISTINE K. GOLDSMITH,
Judge of the Superior Court; HON.
JEANNIE LOWE, Commissioner of the
Superior Court (Ret.); HON. WILLIAM H.
McADAM, JR., Judge of the Superior
Court; HON. EDLENE C. McKENZIE,
Commissioner of the Superior Court; HON.
JOEL R. WOHLFEIL, Judge of the
Superior Court; HON. MICHAEL
GROCH, Judge of the Superior Court; and
KRISTINE P. NESTHUS
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 17 of 18
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
25508.00086\8711008.1 -13-
MEM. OF P. & A. IN SUPP. OF
MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
L
A
W
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
O
F
B
E
S
T
B
E
S
T
&
K
R
I
E
G
E
R
L
L
P
6
5
5
W
E
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
,
1
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
9
2
1
0
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed
to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this
document via the courts CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5(b)(2)(E). Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission
and/or first class mail this 13th day of May 2014.
/s/ Matthew L. Green _______
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 160-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 18 of 18