161 oppo to omnibus & joinders
Post on 03-Jun-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
1/184
-i-OPPO. TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
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
Colbern C. Stuart IIIEmail: Cole.Stuart@Lexevia.com4891 Pacific Highway Ste. 102San Diego, CA 92110Telephone: 858-504-0171Facsimile: 619-231-9143In Pro Se
Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice)Email: ricoman1968@aol.comLaw Offices of Dean Browning Webb515 E 39th St.Vancouver, WA 98663-2240Telephone: 503-629-2176
Eric W. Ching, Esq. SBN 2923575252 Balboa Arms Dr. Unit 132San Diego, CA 92117Phone: 510-449-1091Facsimile: 619-231-9143Attorneys for Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COALITION FORFAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.SAN DIEGO COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants
Case No. 13-cv-1944-CAB BLM)Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
PLAINTIFFS JOINT OPPOSITION TO
OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISSFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ANDJOINDERS
Date: June 6, 2014Time: 2:00 p.m.Courtroom:4C
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDSUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL
Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
2/184
-1-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................... 2
I. The Action ............................................................................................................ 2
II. Superior Court Motion to dismiss ........................................................................ 2
III. Commission Motion To Dismiss....................................................................... 4
IV. Other Defendants Motions, Extensions ............................................................. 4
V. December 19, 2013 hearing .................................................................................. 5
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 7
I. ANALYSIS OF THE OMNIBUS ........................................................................ 7
A. Rule 41(b) Sanction is Frivolous ....................................................................... 7
B. Statutes Of Limitations Bar No Claim ............................................................ 28
C. Rooker-Feldman Bars No Claim ..................................................................... 44
D. Eleventh Amendment Bars No Claim ............................................................. 49
E. Color of Law Authority ................................................................................... 67
F. Lanham Act ..................................................................................................... 83
G. RICO ................................................................................................................ 89
II. ATTACKS BY COUNT .................................................................................. 110
A. Count 2 (State Law Claims) .......................................................................... 110
B. Count 3 (Malicious Prosecution) ................................................................... 111
C. Count 4 (Nesthus Obstruction of Justice) ..................................................... 120
D. Count 6 (Supervisory Liability) .................................................................... 121
E. Count 7 (Municipal Liability) ....................................................................... 127
F. Count 8 (Respondeat Superior) ..................................................................... 131
G. Count 9 (42 U.S.C. 1985) ........................................................................... 133
H. Count 10 (42 U.S.C. 1986) ......................................................................... 140
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 2 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
3/184
-2-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
I. Counts 11, 12, 14, 15 (Doyne Terrorism): .................................................... 142
J. California Constitution Article I, sec. 26 Claims .......................................... 145
K. Prospective Relief Counts ............................................................................. 146
III. OTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ......................................................... 150A. Domestic Relations Exception to Jurisdiction ........................................... 151
B. Quasi-Judicial Immunity: .............................................................................. 152
C. California Tort Claims Act Defense .............................................................. 158
D. State Constitutional Immunities Do Not Protect Ultra Vires Conduct ......... 158
E. Noerr-Pennington Bars No Claim ................................................................. 159
F. California Civil Code 47 Litigation Privilege ........................................ 161
G. RICO Claims Do Not Depend on Duties to Third Parties ............................ 161
H. Personal Jurisdiction and Venue ................................................................... 161
I. California Coalitions Capacity to Sue .......................................................... 162
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 164
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 3 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
4/184
-3-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
CASES
Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) ............................................... 67, 68
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987) .. 29, 30
Aguilar v. Mega Lighting, Inc. 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28348 (C.D. Cal April 6,
2009)....................................................................................................................... 105
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) .................................................................. 52
American Automotive Accessories v. Fishman, 175 F.3d 534, 542 (7th Cir. 1998) ... 93,
95
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693 (1992) ................................................. 152
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 432 (1993). ........................... 46, 114
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 511 (2006)................................................... 151
Arena v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Nassau Cnty., 216 F. Supp. 2d 146, 153-54 (E.D.N.Y.
2002)....................................................................................................................... 115
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664, (2009) ............................................... 10 et passim
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................................... 47 et passim
Ateeq v. Najor, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1351 (1993) ....................................................... 35, 44
Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2010) .. 31Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935) ................................... 136
Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 859 F.2d 1096 (2d Cir. 1988) .................................... 32
Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................................ 61
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) ....... 50, 106
Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 365 (2001) ................ 56
BE&K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002) ................................................... 160
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959 ........................................... 136
Beane v. Paulsen, 21 Cal. App. 4th 89 (1993) ............................................................. 38
Beard v. Udall, 648 F.2d 1264 ............................................................................. 46, 113
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, (2007) .......................... 9 et passim
Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 326 (2d Cir. 1996) ...................................................... 21
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 4 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
5/184
-4-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Berry v. Baca, 379 F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir.2004) ...................................................... 107
Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Fla., Inc., 906 F.2d 1546 (11th
Cir. 1990). ................................................................................................................ 33
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) .................................... 145
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) .................................................................. 68, 72
Board of County Commissioners v. United States, 308 U.S. 343, 352........................ 29
Borchardt v. Reid, CV 08-3086 DOC, 2008 WL 4810791 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2008) 54
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) ......................................... 66, 141
Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237, 2244 (2009) ................................................. 99
Branch v. Tunnell,937 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1991) ...................................................... 81
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ................................................................. 66
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 267 (1993) .................... 137
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S.
288 (2001) .......................................................................................................... 68, 72
Brewer v. Hoxie School Dist. No. 46 of Lawrence County, Ark., 238 F.2d 91 (8th Cir.
1956). ..................................................................................................................... 136
Brummett v. Camble, 946 F.2d 1178, 1184 (5th Cir. 1991). ........................... 33, 44, 67
Bryant v. Mattel, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13851 (C.D. Calif., 2 August 2010) .......... 93
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275 (1993) ................................................... 153
Burke v. Dowling, 944 F.Supp. 1036 (D.C.N.Y. 1995) .............................................. 25
Burke v. Dowling, 944 F.Supp. 1036, 1049 (D.C.N.Y. 1995) ..................................... 26
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 498 (1991) .................................................................. 153
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 722 (1961) .......................... 68
Butler v. Elle, 281 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................ 50, 112
Butz v. Economou, 438 US 478, 519 (1978) .............................................................. 120
Cacy v. United States, 298 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir.1961) ............................................ 95
Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir.
2011)..................................................................................................................... 6, 23
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 5 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
6/184
-5-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008) .................... 97
Caproni v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 15 F.3d 614, 618 (6th Cir. 1994) ............................ 30
Carrigan v. California State Legislature, 263 F.2d 560 (9thCir. 1959) ...................... 26
Catalan v. Vermillion Ranch Ltd. Partnership, 2007, 2007 WL 38135, *5 (D.C.
Colo.) ........................................................................................................................ 25
Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. Don King Promotions, Inc., 533 U.S. 158, 161
(2001). .................................................................................................................... 100
Chenault v. Cobb, C 13-03828 MEJ, 2013 WL 6072025 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013).
................................................................................................................................ 131
Chicago Miracle Temple Church, Inc. v. Fox, 901 F. Supp. 1333, 1347 (N.D. Ill.
1995)....................................................................................................................... 134
Christie v. Iopa,176 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir.1999) ............................................... 106
citing Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1 (1989) ......................................... 50
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989). ......................................................... 107
City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988). ............................................... 107
Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 202 (1985) ....................................................... 115
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, (1957) .................................................................... 9
Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.),Inc., 858 F.2d 499, 505 (1988) ................... 36
Connick v. Thompson, 131 S.Ct. 1350 (2011) ........................................................... 128
Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d
242, 247 (9th Cir.1990) ............................................................................................ 22
Cooper v. Molko, 512 F. Supp. 563, 568 (N.D. Cal. 1981) ......................................... 67
Cousins v. Lockyear, 568 F.3d 1063 (9thCir. 2009) .................................................. 146
Crumpacker v. Civiletti, 90 F.R.D. 326, 329 (D.C. Ind.1981) ........................ 14, 25, 26
Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996) ..................... 8, 20
Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962) ...................................................... 136
Daniels Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.2010) ....................... 11
Deeths v. Lucile Slater Packard Children's Hosp. at Stanford, 1:12-CV-02096-LJO,
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 6 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
7/184
-6-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
2013 WL 6185175 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2013) ......................................................... 22
Deirmenjian v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., 2006 WL 4749756 **4041 (C.D.Cal.2006) .. 41
Del Campo v. Kennedy, 517 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................. 52, 61
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27, (1980) .................................................................. 67
Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 103
Doe v. Dep't of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1115 (D.C.Cir.1985) .................................... 42
Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) ........................................................................... 55
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974) ............................................................ 55
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065-1066 9 (9th Cir. 2004) ............... 88
E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs., 153 Cal. App. 4th 1308, 1317-18 (2007) ..... 38
Ellenburg v. Brockway, Inc., 763 F.2d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 1985) ...................... 35, 44
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) ............................................................. 9
Ervin v. Los Angeles Cnty., 848 F.2d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................. 34
Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 348-349 (1880) ...................................... 60, 116, 118
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 15556 (1908) ......................................................... 60, 61
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 286 (2005) ............... 45
Fid. Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Castle, 2011 WL 6141310 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...................... 24
Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C.Cir.1996) ....................................... 42
Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 164, (1978) ......................................... 68
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) ................................................................. 21
Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 (1945) ..................... 51
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 222 (1988) ............................................................. 46
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988) ........................................................... 115
Fox v. Ethicon EndoSurgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797, 806 (2005) .......................... 34, 38
Fraklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 445 (9th Cir. 2002). ..................................................... 81
Friedman v. 24 Hour Fitness Co., 580 F.Supp.2d 985 (C.D. Calif. 2008) ................ 99
Gaglione v. Coolidge,134 Cal.App.2d 518, 527 (1955 .............................................. 35
Galbraith v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) ................... 81
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 7 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
8/184
-7-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 (9th Cir. 2005). ..................................... 153
Gibbs v. Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel, 183 Cal.App.3d 716, 228 Cal.Rptr.
398, 402 (1986) ........................................................................................................ 44
Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 856 (9th Cir.1999) ........................... 75
Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir.1997) ............................... 51
Giuliano v. Everything Yogurt, Inc., 819 F.Supp. 240 (D.C.N.Y.1993) ..................... 26
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 ......................................................................... 121
Graham v. Taubman, 610 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1979) ............................................. 28, 112
Gray v. Evercore Restructuring L.L.C., 544 F3d 320, 324 (1st Cir. 2008) ......... 51, 113
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116, (1972) .......................................... 160
GreaterLos Angeles Council of Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 607 F. Supp. 175, 179 (C.D.
Cal. 1984) ................................................................................................. 50 et passim
Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 (1974) ................................................................ 114
Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, (1971) ............................................ 135, 140
Grisham v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 623, 637, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 735, 151
P.3d 1151 (2007) ................................................................................................ 36, 38
Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 39697 (1957) ........................................ 31
Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 706-07 (9th Cir. 2006). .......................................... 41
Guinn v. United States,238 U.S. 347 (1914) ...................................................... 66, 121
Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2006) ......................................... 45
H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) .......................... 97
H.T. v. Ciavarella, No. 3:09-cv-0357 (ARC) (M.D. Pa.) ............................................ 60
Han v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 1993 WL 13011266 (C.A.9) ......................................... 61
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890) ........................................................................ 49
Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F.2d 384, 404 (7th
Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................................. 93
Harris v. Deveaux, 780 F.2d 911, 915 (11th Cir. 1986) ............................................ 114
Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................... 81
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 8 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
9/184
-8-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir.1997) ............................................ 81
Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008) .......... 24
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) ................................................................... 120
Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U.S. 30 (1994).............. 50, 51
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (U.S. 2013) .................................................. 66
Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 100304 (9th Cir.2006) ................. 42
Ikuno v. Yip, 912 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir. 1990) .......................................................... 98
In re Credit Industrial Corp., 366 F.2d 402, 411 (2d Cir. 1966) ................................ 22
In re George, 322 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 8
In re Global Crossing, Ltd. Secs. Litigation, 2003 WL 22999478 (D.C.N.Y.) .......... 25
Indus. Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 278 F. Supp. 938, 949 (C.D. Cal.
1967)......................................................................................................................... 20
Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980) ....................... 42, 112
Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir.2001) .................................................. 123
Jett v. DallasIndep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989) ........................................ 106
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) .................................................. 69
Johnson v. Haberman & Kassoy, 201 Cal. App. 3d 1468, 247 Cal. Rptr. 614 (2d Dist.
1988)................................................................................................................... 33, 39
Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676, 686 (9th Cir.2004) ................................................. 107
Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 465 (1975) ................................. 29
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................. 35, 44
Junho Hyon v. Sei Shimoguchi, No. CIV 12-1235 JAM EFB PS, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 74100 at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2012) ........................................................ 54
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) ................................................................... 153
Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) ..... 7, 11
Katzberg v. Regents of Univ. of California, 29 Cal. 4th 300 (2002) ......................... 119
Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73 (2000) ............................................ 56
Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) .......................................... 118, 121
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 9 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
10/184
-9-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Kleinecke v. Montecito Water Dist., 147 Cal.App.3d 240, 245 (1983) ....................... 35
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,21 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).............. 151
Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................. 46
Kournikova v. General Media Communications, Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (C.D.
Cal. 2003) ................................................................................................................. 88
Kunik v. Racine County, 946 F.2d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir.1991) ................................... 76
Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 720 (1983) ..................................................... 135, 137
Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Am. Sec. Bank, N.A., 890 F.2d 456, 463 n. 11
(D.C.Cir.1989) ......................................................................................................... 42
Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U. S. 391 (1979)
.................................................................................................................................. 51
Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397 (9th Cir. 1991)
................................................................................................................................ 106
Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal.4th 363, 370 (2003) ................................................. 34
Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir.1991) ............................... 123
Larsen v. Lauriel Investments, Inc., 161 F. Supp.2d 1029, 1042 (D. Ariz. 2001) 93, 95
Lauter v. Anoufrieva, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .................. 31, 36, 41, 44
Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. NarcoticsIntelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S.
163 (1993) ................................................................................................ 69 et passim
Lewis v. News-Press & Gazette Co., 782 F. Supp. 1338, 1341 (W.D. Mo. 1992) .... 135
Lewis v. Sprock, 612 F. Supp. 1316, 1324 (N.D. Cal. 1985) ....................................... 90
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014)......... 84
Life Ins. Co. of North America v. Reichardt, 591 F.2d 499, 505 (9th Cir.1979) ....... 138
Life Insurance Co. of North America v. Reichardt, 591 F.2d 499, 501 (9th Cir.1979)
.................................................................................................................................. 68
Living Designs Inc., v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361, 364 (9th
Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................................. 97
Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours, 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 10 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
11/184
-10-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
................................................................................................................................ 100
Lopez v. Vanderwater, 620 F.2d 1229 (7th Cir.) ....................................................... 114
Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) ...................................................... 67
Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 978, 981 (9thCir.2004). ........................................................ 106
Maduka v. Sunrise Hosp., 375 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................... 122
Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1932); Restatement (Second) of Torts
162 (1965) ...................................................................................................... 113, 120
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803) ......................................................... 50
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 507-08 (1946) ........................................................ 68
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 305 (2006)....................................................... 152
McCarthy v. Fuller, 2010 WL 2243354, *1 (S.D. Ind. 2010) ..................................... 25
McCluny v. Silliman, 28 U.S. 270, 276 (1830) ............................................................ 28
McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606, 614-17 (D.C.Cir.1980) ......................................... 135
McDougal v. County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673-674 (1991) ............................... 34
McHenry v. Renne, 74 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................... 6, 19
Meek v. Cnty. of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................. 115
Melara v. Kennedy, 541 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1976) ............................................... 68
Melara v. Kennedy, 541 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir.1976) ................................................ 67
Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1301-02 (9th Cir. 1999) 75
Mendoza v. Wilmington Fin., C-10-5792 SC, 2011 WL 2182914 (N.D. Cal. June 6,
2011)......................................................................................................................... 42
Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 301 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................... 103
Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1149 (9th Cir.2005) ................................ 123
Merrill v. Abbott(In re Indep. Clearing House Co., 77 B.R. 843, 860 (D.Utah 1987)
.................................................................................................................................. 96
Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College Dist.,861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir.1988)
.................................................................................................................................. 61
Mollnow v. Carlton, 716 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 1983) ............................................ 135
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 11 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
12/184
-11-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Monell v. Dept of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) .............. 50, 106
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 171-72 (1961) ............................................................ 30
Monteagudo v. Alksne, 11-CV-1089, at 4:4-7:9, 8:2-21 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2011) ...... 48
Montoya v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 2010) .. 139
Moor v. Alameda Cnty.,411 U.S. 693, 717 (1973) ..................................................... 50
Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................................... 116
Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................ 34
Moreno v. Sanchez, 106 Cal.App.4th 1415 (2003) ................................................ 33, 39
Morgan v. Kobrin Secs., Inc., 649 F.Supp. 1023, 1027 (D.C.Ill.1986) ....................... 25
Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal., 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 6364 (2000) .............. 41
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................... 10 et passim
Murray v. Sevier, 993 F.Supp. 1394 (D.C.Ala. 1997) ................................................. 26
Musick v. Burke, 913 F.2d 1390, 1398 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................. 104
N. Ins. Co. of New York v. Chatham Cnty., Ga., 547 U.S. 189, 194 (2006) ............... 52
National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994) ...................... 163
Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dept. of Transp., 96 F.3d 420, 422
(1996) ....................................................................................................................... 61
Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................. 9, 10
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1999) ....................................................... 96
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, (1989) ............................................................. 9
Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981)....................... 6
New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340, 346 (1922) ........................... 35
Niles v. Nelson, 72 F.Supp.2d 13 (D.C.N.Y.1999 ) ..................................................... 26
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1162-64 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................ 46
Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2002) .......................................... 120
Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383, 397 (1999). ............................................. 34, 38
North Georgia Finishing, Incorporated v. Di-Chem, Incorporated, 419 U.S. 601
(1975) ................................................................................................................. 68, 72
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 12 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
13/184
-12-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California v. E.E.O.C., 432 U.S. 355, 367 (1977) ........... 29
Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................... 98
Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 782 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................... 94
OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2012) ........... 11 et passim
Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 825 (9th Cir. 2007) ....................................................... 97
Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.1992) .............................................. 107
Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir. 1987). .............. 31
Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 123 (1989) ......... 19
People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, 108 F. Supp. 2d 275, 286
(S.D.N.Y. 2000) ..................................................................................................... 115
Perez-Falcon v. Synagro West,LLC, 2011 WL 6752533, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2011) .......... 25
Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................. 66
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) ....................................................... 102
Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708, 721 (9th Cir.2011) .................. 11
Precision Inst. Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814
(1945) ................................................................................................................. 35, 44
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 143
(1993) ....................................................................................................................... 52
Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984) ......................................................... 116
Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1980) ........................................ 47, 113
Recorder v. Comm'n on Judicial Performance, 72 Cal. App. 4th 258 (1999) ........... 158
Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.1991) ..................... 123
Richardson v. Koshiba, 693 F.2d 911 (9thCir. 1982) .................................................. 47
Richardson v. Koshiba, 693 F.2d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1982) ....................................... 115
Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 976 (S.D. Cal. 1998) .................................. 53
Riddell v. Riddell Washington Corp., 866 F.2d 1480, 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ............ 36
Robinson v. Maruffi, 895 F.2d 649, 654 (10th Cir. 1990) ........................................... 31
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 650 (1996) ................................................................. 66
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 13 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
14/184
-13-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Rosen v. Cmty. Educ. Ctrs., Inc., CV-10-0584, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *7-9 (D.
Ariz. Oct. 8, 2010) ................................................................................................. 137
Ruiz v. Scriber, C 07-00020 WHA, 2007 WL 2790203 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2007) . 145
Rutledge v. Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co., 576 F.2d 248, 250 (9th Cir.1978) ... 38
Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 514, 524 (9th Cir.1999); ...................... 123
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) ............................................................. 102
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 6165 (1997) ................................... 76, 101, 108
Sathianathanv. Smith Barney, Inc., C 04-2130 SBA, 2004 WL 3607403 (N.D. Cal.
June 6, 2005) ............................................................................................................ 25
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974................................................................. 9
Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980 .......................................... 6
Scott v. Eversole Mortuary, 522 F.2d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir.1975) ............................... 67
Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984) .................................. 112, 150
Screws v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945) .............................................................. 66, 121, 142
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 500 (1985) ................................. 110
Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) .................... 138, 140
Seville Indus. Mach. Corp. v. Southmost Mach. Corp., 742 F.2d 786 (3d Cir. 1984), 95
Shaw v. State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600,
603 (9th Cir.1986) ................................................................................................ 4, 55
Sherman v. Yakahi, 549 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1977) ......................................... 134
Smith v. Berg, 247 F.3d 532 (3rd Cir. 2001), ............................................................ 103
Sosa v. DIRECTV. Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 929 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................... 159
Soto v. Schembri, 960 F. Supp. 751, 760 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ....................................... 134
Sparkman v. McFarlin, Civ. No. F 75-129 (ND Ind., May 13, 1976) ....................... 114
Spencer v. Kemma, 523 U.S. 1, 19 (1998); ................................................................ 120
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1214 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................... 10
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................... 11
State ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services, Inc., 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 418
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 14 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
15/184
-14-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
(2007) ....................................................................................................................... 41
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Ammann, 838 F.2 4 (9thCir. 1987) ........................ 33
Sterlin v. Biomune Systems, 154 F.3d 1191, 1201 (10th Cir.1998) ............................. 33
Stewart v. Baldwin County Board of Education, 908 F.2d 1499, 1509 (11th Cir.1990)
.................................................................................................................................. 61
Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................. 36
Stump v. Sparkman, 35 U.S. at 360 ........................................................................... 113
Sun Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187, 194 (9th Cir. 1987) ................... 110
Sun Sav. and Loan Assoc. v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187 (9th Cir.1987) ....................... 106
Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir.1995). ............. 34
Supreme Court of Va. v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, 731 (1980) .................... 114
Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of U. S., Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 720
(1980) ....................................................................................................................... 46
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, (2002) ........................ 9, 14, 51
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) ................................................... 122
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) ....................................................... 55, 143
Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 484, (1953) ................................................................. 68
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134, 113940 (9th Cir.2000)
................................................................................................................................ 147
Thomas v. Miller, 928 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1991 ........................................................... 33
Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) .......... 8
Thorman v. American Seafoods Co., 421 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir.2005) ................. 38
Thornton v. Brown, 11-56146, 2013 WL 7216368 (9th Cir. July 31, 2013). ............ 120
Ticor Title Insurance Co. v. Florida, 937 F.2d 447 (9th Cir. 1991) ........................... 97
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) .................................................................... 140
Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir.2012) ............................... 68
Tuveson v. Florida Governor's Council on Indian Affairs, Inc., 734 F.2d 730, 732
(11th Cir.1984) ......................................................................................................... 61
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 15 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
16/184
-15-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir.
2003)....................................................................................................................... 124
United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................... 116, 118
United States. v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003) ............ 25
United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 588-89 (1981) ............................................ 109
United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705 (3d Cir. 2013) ......................................... 61
United States v. Robertson, 514 US. 669 (1995) ...................................................... 105
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2544, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012) ............. 160
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) ............................................... 66
United States v. Bohonus, 628 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 928
(1980) ....................................................................................................................... 94
United States v. Bucci, 839 F.2d 825, 829 (1st Cir. 1988 ............................................ 31
United States v. Buckley, 689 F.2d 893, 897-98 (9th Cir.1982) .................................. 94
United States v. Buckley, 689 F.2d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 1982) ...................................... 95
United States v. Ciccone, 219 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................. 96
United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 .............................................................. 121
United States v. Craft, 105 F.3d 1123, 1125 (6th Cir. 1997) ...................................... 31
United States v. Doherty, 867 F.2d 47 (1stCir. 1989) ............................................... 105
United States v. Dowling, 739 F.2d 1445, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1984) ............................ 94
United States v. Feldman, 853 F.2d 648 (9th Cir, 1988) ........................................... 100
United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................... 103
United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1230 (9thCir.2004), ............................. 108
United States v. Galiffa, 734 F.2d 306, 311 (7th Cir. 1984) ...................................... 102
United States v. Green, 592 F.3d 1057, 1060-1071 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................ 94
United States v. Juvenile Male, 118 F.3d 1344, 1348 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................... 105
United States v. McNeive, 536 F.2d 1245, 1248 (8th Cir. 1976) ................................. 94
United States v. National Medical Enters., Inc.,792 F.2d 906, 913 (9th Cir.1986) ... 20
United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 795 (1966) ........................................................ 67
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 16 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
17/184
-16-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
United States v. Ripinsky, 109 F.3d 1436, 1444 (9th Cir.1997) ................................ 105
United States v. Robinson, 763 F.2d 778 (6thCir. 1985) ........................................... 105
United States v. Rogers, 321 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................... 96
United States v. Schaflander, 717 F.2d 1024 (9th Cir. 1983), ..................................... 96
United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 971 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................... 94
United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................ 105
United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (U.S. 1981) ........................................... 98
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540-41 (9th
Cir.1989) .................................................................................................................. 33
v.99
Vasquez v. Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1025, 1037 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................... 48
Venegas v. Wagner, 704 F.2d 1144, 1145 (9th Cir. 1983) .......................................... 32
Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir.1987) ............................................. 42
Vierria v. California Highway Patrol, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1240 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
.......................................................................................................................... 60, 158
Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, (2000) ......................................... 137
Wallace v. Powell, 3:09-cv-00268-ARC ................................................................... 113
Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir.2003) ................................................. 106
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) .............................................................................. 67
Westways World Travel v. AMR Corp., 182 F. Supp.2d 952, 957 (C.D. Calif. 2001)
.................................................................................................................................. 93
Westways World Travel v. AMR Corp., 182 F. Supp.2d 952 (C.D. Calif. 2001) ........ 21
White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................... 55, 58, 105
White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................ 144
Wilbur v. United States, 281 U.S. 206, 218 (1930) ..................................................... 61
Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A., 815 F.2d 522, 531, n. 7 (9th Cir.
1987)......................................................................................................................... 96
Williams-Jones v. LaHood, 656 F. Supp. 2d 63, 67-68 (D.D.C. 2009) ....................... 42
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 17 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
18/184
-17-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Wilson v. Toussie, 260 F. Supp.2d 530, n 5 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) .................................... 90
Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 161 (6th Cir.1983), ............................... 135
Witt v. Dep't of Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 817 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................... 66
Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 363-64 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................... 147
Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................. 50
Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir.2004) .................................................. 25
Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826-27 (9th Cir. 1979) ......................... 21, 28
Yick Wo v. Hopkins,118 U.S. 356 (1886) ................................................................... 66
Yourish v. Calif. Amplif., 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999) ......................................... 8
Zatkin v. Primuth, 551 F. Supp. 39, 42 (S.D. Cal. 1982) ............................................ 92
Zeller v. Rankin, 451 U.S. 939 (1981) ................................................................. 47, 113
STAVROPSTATUTES
15 U.S.C. 1127 .......................................................................................................... 85
15 U.S.C. 1116(a) ........................................................................................... 61, 147
15 U.S.C. 1116(a), .................................................................................................. 6118 U. S. C. 242 .......................................................................................................... 64
18 U.S.C. 1951 ........................................................................................................ 108
18 U.S.C. 1964(a) ....................................................................................... 61, 62, 147
18 U.S.C. 3282 .......................................................................................................... 31
18 U.S.C. 2261(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 58, 105
28 U.S.C. 1337 .................................................................................................. 61, 147
28 U.S.C. 1361 .......................................................................................................... 61
28 U.S.C. 1738 .................................................................................................. 58, 105
28 U.S.C. 2201-2202 ...................................................................................... 61, 147
28 U.S.C.A. 2071 ................................................................................................ 19, 20
42 U.S.C. 1983 ........................................................................................... 6, et passim
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 18 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
19/184
-18-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
42 U.S.C. 1988(a) ............................................................................................. 61, 147
42 U.S.C. 2000d-7..................................................................................................... 58
TREATISES
Weinstein & Distler, Comments on Procedural Reform: Drafting Pleading Rules, 57
Colum. L.Rev. 518, 520 521 (1957) ...................................................................... 11
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 19 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
20/184
-1-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC (CALIFORNIA
COALITION) and Colbern Stuart (STUART) hereby jointly oppose Defendants
Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 131)
(OMNIBUS) and Joinders (Doc. Nos. 134-152).To manage the substantial overlap in Defendants attacks, Plaintiffs offer this
single combined Opposition in three sections:
Section I responds to the OMNIBUS in the same organization and order it is
brought, and incorporates responses to various joinders that expand on OMNIBUS
attacks.
Section II responds to attacks from joinders which are not raised in the
OMNIBUS. The section collects from the joinders all attacks on a particular Count,
recites each attack, then responds in defense of the Count. For example, the CITY
ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS and GROCH, represented by different counsel, both
attack Count 3 in separate joinders. This Opposition responds to both attacks in one
section collecting all attacks on Count 3: Section II, B. Similar organization-by-
Count is followed throughout Section II.
Section III responds to all other attacks not raised in the OMNIBUS and not
specific to a Count, such as blanket affirmative defenses applicable to all counts
such as immunity, privilege, or capacity. Section III is organized by topic of the
attack.
Defendants had opportunity to file one 30 page OMNIBUS and ten pages for
each of 18 joinders, for a total of 210 pages of opportunity. Plaintiffs had similaropportunity. Defendants used less space than permitted, as does this combined
Opposition.
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 20 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
21/184
-2-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. THE ACTIONPlaintiffs filed the initial complaint on August 20, 2013 asserting violations of
42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986 (Civil Rights Act), 15 U.S.C. 1125 (Lanham
Act), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (RICO), and seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201 (Declaratory
Judgment Act). Plaintiffs are a legal and social services organization providing
representing the interests of family court litigants and its President. Plaintiffs sue the
San Diego County Bar Association, Family Justice Center Alliance, divorce
attorneys, forensic psychologists, family court judges, and others which organize,
certify, and support the divorce industry. Plaintiffs also sue various governmental
entities such as the San Diego Superior Court and its judges, and other governmental
elements working within the divorce industry such as the Administrative Office of the
Courts, Judicial Council, and its leaders. Plaintiffs also sue employees of the
Commission on Judicial Performance who have facilitated the criminal behavior
described herein.
As Plaintiff was proceeding with service of the initial complaint, two groups of
defendants filed motions to dismiss; one by a group of California Superior Court
Judicial Defendants (Superior Court Defendants) (Doc. No. 16), and one by the
Commission on Judicial Performance and its employee defendants (Commission
Defendants) (Doc. No. 22). The motions attacked the complaint broadly and
vigorously as follows:
II. SUPERIOR COURT MOTION TO DISMISSThe Superior Courts Motion to Dismiss (MTD) attacked on fourteen grounds,
including: (1) capacity and representation of the corporate plaintiffs, (2) standing, (3)
sovereign immunity, (4) judicial immunity, (5) qualified immunity, (6) statute of
limitations, (8)Rooker-Feldman, (9) failure to state cognizable claims for (a) RICO
and (b) 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986, (c) Lanham Act (d) conspiracy under Twombly,
and (e) a bucket of mud attack under rule 8(a). MTD 4:4-5:9. Defendants sought
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 21 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
22/184
-3-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
only dismissal with prejudice. MTD 5:8-9. Superior Court Defendants filed a
Request for Judicial Notice attaching nine exhibits.
Upon receiving the MTD, STUART prepared and on October 28, 2013
delivered letter to the Superior Court Defendants requesting to meet and confer
regarding the attacks of the MTD. (M&C). To assist defendants in understanding
the complex complaint, the M&C disclosed the factual legal basis for the case,
offered supporting citation and analysis, additional exhibits, and responded to each of
the criticisms raised in the MTD. The M&C requested a personal conference to
advance a dialogue, and requested the parties discuss a stipulation to amend the
Complaint to resolve certain fairly-taken allegations of insufficient fact pleading, that
certain frivolous grounds in the MTD be withdrawn prior to expenditure of additional
court and party resources, for brief leave to permit the corporate plaintiffs to complete
Mr. Webbs pro hac vice admission, and that the RJN be withdrawn as evidentiary
and controversial.
Two days after receiving the M&C, Superior Court Defendants categorically
rejected Plaintiffs invitation. Voluminous briefing followed.
Plaintiff opposed the MTD on grounds that (1) the MTDs argued controversial
facts; (2) the Complaint admitted no immunity defenses, (3)Rooker-Feldmanwas
inapplicable and (4) the RICO and civil rights claims were adequately pled and
supported. Plaintiff acknowledged the statutes of limitations and corporate Plaintiffs
representation issues, and requested leave to cure with details regarding equitable
tolling and estoppel, and to complete Mr. Webbs pro hac vice application. Plaintiff
countered Defendants Request for Judicial notice with a Motion to Strike
controversial evidence and testimony therein.
The Superior Court alone filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11(b),
asserting that the Complaint was entirelyfrivolous and filed for no purposed other
than to harass the Superior Court. Plaintiff STUART filed a separate Rule 11 motion
directed to portions of the MTD as frivolous and intended for delay.
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 22 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
23/184
-4-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
III. COMMISSION MOTION TO DISMISSCommission Defendants asserted only sovereign immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment. The Commission made no attempt at a factual showing to establish that
it was an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, instead
relying on this Circuits precedent in cases extending Eleventh Amendment Immunity
to the Commission without performing an arm of the state analysis required under
Supreme Court and this Circuits precedents. See, e.g., Pennhurst State School &
Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984); Greater Los Angeles Council on
Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987); Shaw v. State of California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir.1986).
Plaintiff opposed arguing the Commissions failure to establish it is a state or
arm of the state, that Commission employees were acting ultra vires, and noted that
dismissal of individual capacity claims is unavailable afterEx Parte Young.
Commission Oppo. 21:4-24:11.
IV. OTHER DEFENDANTS MOTIONS, EXTENSIONSOther Defendants filed vigorous attacks on multiple substantive grounds in
separate motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), (6), some of which attached
exhibits, effectively converting those motions to Rule 56 motions for summary
judgment. These Motions asserted attacks parallel to the Superior Court MTD and
added numerous attacks specific to each Defendant, including aNoerr-Penington
attack, a res judicata attack, a domestic relations exception attack, assertion of state
tort claims presentation defects, and various individualized particularity, more
definite statement, conclusory allegations, and insufficient facts grounds under
Rules 8(a), 9(b), and 12(e).
Ten Defendants, including lead Defendant San Diego County Bar Association
and several divorce law firms sought and received from Plaintiffs a stipulation to
extend time to respond to the Complaint until disposition of the two pending motions
to dismiss. The Court granted these extensions, relieving these ten defendantsall
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 23 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
24/184
-5-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
who so requestedof obligation to respond to the Complaint. Numerous other
Defendants joining the OMNIBUS were not named or served in the first round and
have not responded before the OMNIBUS. The OMNIBUS Motion lead by San
Diego County Bar Association is its, and every other Defendantssave the
Commission and Superior Court Defendantsfirst contested response to any
complaint.
V. DECEMBER 19, 2013 HEARINGAt hearing on December 19, 2013, the Court dismissed claims against the
Commission and its employees in official capacity with prejudice as immune under
the Eleventh Amendment. The Court denied the Commissions motion with respect to
the individual capacity claims against Simi and Battson, and dismissed the claims
against the Superior Court with leave to amend.
The Court provided guidance to Plaintiffs in amending the Complaint:
1. Corporate Plaintiffs: The Court found that counsel for Corporate Plaintiffs,
Mr. Dean Browning Webb, was listed on the Complaint caption, but did not sign the
Complaint. The Court dismissed the Corporate Plaintiffs Complaint, ruling: No
counsel appeared for California Coalition or Lexevia at the motions hearing held
December 19, 2013. Because plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia do not
appear through counsel, the court DISMISSES their claims without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff Stuart: The Court found that the Complaint regarding Stuart failed
to comply with Rule 8(a) for three reasons:
First, the Court found that because the Corporate Plaintiffs claims were then
dismissed, the remaining portions of the Complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8.
[B]ecause plaintiffs assert most of their claims on behalf of all three plaintiffs,
neither the court nor defendants can distinguish Stuarts asserted harm from the
corporations. The Court stated that because the corporate plaintiffs were dismissed,
the remaining portion of the Complaint relevant to Stuart does not set forth plain
statements of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief.
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 24 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
25/184
-6-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
Second, the Court found that Stuart fails to clearly identify each separate
claim for relief. The Court identified the caption for Count One, which identified
the Count was brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, identified the various constitutional
provisions which the claim asserted (U.S. Const. 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 14th
Amend.), and included a notation to Supplemental State Claims
The Court stated that this structure of caption for the Count failed to specify
just how many separate state and federal claims Stuart intends to assert here. The
Court also found that the Count fails to connect his factual allegations to the
numerous causes of action identified. The Court directed: If Stuart sincerely means
to assert that defendants violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, he must identify the factual allegations that support
each alleged violation.
Third, the Court noted that while length or verbosity alone are not
inappropriate, dismissal on Rule 8 grounds where the complaint is argumentative,
prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant;McHenry v. Renne, 74 F.3d
1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996); verbose, confusing and conclusory, Nevijel v. North
Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981); or where it is impossible to
designate the cause or causes of action attempted to be alleged in the complaint,
Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court
characterized the Complaint generally: plaintiffs complaint here is confusing,
redundant, conclusory, and buries its factual allegations in pages of generalized
grievances about the family courts. The prolixity and inscrutability of plaintiffs
complaint is unduly prejudicial to defendants, who face the onerous task of combing
through [plaintiffs lengthy complaint] just to prepare an answer that admits or denies
such allegations and to determine what claims and allegations must be defended or
otherwise litigated. Order at 7:14 (quoting Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4
Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Courts dismissal was without prejudice and with leave to amend, with
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 25 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
26/184
-7-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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 following exceptions. The exceptionsdismissals withprejudicewere for
claims against the defendant judges for damages arising out of judicial acts within
the jurisdiction of their courts and claims against the Commission on Judicial
Performance and against its officials, Simi and Battson, to the extent the latter are
sued for damages in their official capacity. (Order 7:5-8).
Consistent with Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623
(9th Cir. 1988), the Court provided plaintiff a statement of the complaint's
deficiencies and instructed: (1) Heed the statute of limitations for Title 42 claims
which is generally two years and To the extent Stuart contends that equitable
tolling should apply, he must set forth specific allegations in his amended complaint
to support such a theory and (2) that Stuart appropriately and coherently identifies
his causes of action and the specific defendants he alleges liable for his asserted
damages without unnecessary verbiage, argument, and rhetoric. Order at 9:3.
The Court denied Defendant Superior Court of San Diego Countys motion for
sanctions under Rule 11 and deemed withdrawn ten other motions to dismiss,
providing no adjudication or direction regarding the withdrawn matter. At hearing
on February 26, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs Rule 11 motion nunc pro tunc
effective December 19, 2013.
DISCUSSION
I. ANALYSIS OF THE OMNIBUSA.Rule 41(b) Sanction is Frivolous
Defendants invite the Court to commit clear error of law in seeking sanctions
in a first response to a Complaint.1 The faithless litigation maneuver is not merely
frivolous, but a sad benchmark in the depravity, disrespect, color of law harassment,
and invidious discrimination these defendants have wrought upon the institutions they
today represent and the citizens they serve. Though sworn to the highest of standards
1All Defendants but Superior Court Defendants (a portion of JUDICIALDEFENDANTS), BATTSON, and SIMI appear in opposition for the first time in theOmnibus. See Procedural History Sec. IV, V.
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 26 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
27/184
-8-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
for obedience to principle and fairness, Defendants today deploy the lowest of
litigation tactics and abuse.
Unwarranted is the kindest characterization of Defendants attempt to lead
this Court into abuse of the power to sanction litigation conduct. If the plaintiff fails
to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to
dismiss the action or any claim against it. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). A sanction of
dismissal under Rule 41(b) is so harsh a penalty it should be imposed as a sanction
only in extreme circumstances. Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366
(9th Cir. 1996). Before imposing dismissal as a sanction, the district court must
weigh several factors: the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; the
court's need to manage its docket; the risk of prejudice to the defendants; the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and the availability of less drastic
sanctions. Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986);In re George, 322 F.3d 586,
591 (9th Cir. 2003). [T]he district court should make explicit findings concerning
each factor before dismissing an action for a party's failure to comply with court
orders. Dismissal (or another terminating sanction) is proper where at least four [of
the five] factors support dismissal, or where at least three factors strongly support
dismissal. Yourish v. Calif. Amplif., 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999) (internal
citations omitted).
1. Plaintiffs Have Not Violated Any Rule or Order
Rule 41(b) is appropriate only upon a finding of failure to comply with these
rules or a court order. Defendants assert three failures: (1) that the FAC fails to
comply with Rule 8(a)(2) and (e)2requiring a short plain statement of a claim and
2Defendants inaccurately recite Rules 8(a) and (e). OMNIBUS at 2:13-15 recites Rule 8(a) asfollows: a pleading "shall" contain a "short and plain statement of the grounds on which the court'sjurisdiction depends" ... and a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader isentitled to relief. ... ". This recitation is error. Accurately recited, Rule 8(a) provides: A pleadingthat states a claim for relief mustcontain: (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showingthat the pleader is entitled to relief. (emphasis added). Defendants also improperly recite Rule
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 27 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
28/184
-9-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
that allegations be simple, concise, and direct. (2) that the FAC fails to comply with
the Courts December 13, 2013 Order, and (3) the FAC fails to comply with other
orders. OMNIBUS at 2:12-8:16.
The FAC does not fail to comply with any rule or order.
a.Rule 8 GenerallyFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The claim need only give the
defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47, (1957)). When ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss, a judge must
accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Twomblyat
555 556 (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, (2002);
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, (1989); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
(1974)). Dismissal is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an
absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.Navarro v.
Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). However, allegations consisting of nothing
more than a formulaic recitation of the elements' of a constitutional discrimination
claim alone do not satisfy Rule 8. Such allegations are not to be discounted
because they are unrealistic or nonsensical, but rather because they do nothing
more than state a legal conclusion. . . . Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969
8(e). Defendants claim: Rule 8(e) states apleadingshall be simple, concise, and direct.
OMNIBUS at 2:15-16 (emphasis added). This is inaccurate. Accurately recited, Rule 8(e) provides:Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice. Defendants may have intended to cite Rule8(d)(1), though they improperly recite that rule as well. Rule 8(d) governs pleadinga verb, nota nounand provides in relevant part: (1) In General. Each allegationmust be simple, concise,and direct. No technical form is required. (emphasis added). Rule 8(d)s requirement of simple,concise and direct modifies allegations, not an entirepleading. Defendants incorrectly interpretthe term pleading in the subsection (d) subtitle Pleadingto be Concise and Direct (emphasisadded) as a noun rather than a verb. Similarly, Rule 8(a)s requirement of a short, plain statementmodifies claims, not the entirepleading. This is, and has been the standard for federal pleading forat least 65 years. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 28 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
29/184
-10-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
(9th Cir. 2009).
b.Rule 8(a) Plausibility AttacksEach Defendant asserts one or more plausibility attacks under Twombly. To
enable analysis of these attacks, the following analytical framework is offered.
Defendants alonebear the burden of establishing entitlement to relief in any
pleading motionincluding establishing a failure to comply with Rule 8. Navarro v.
Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The analytical framework for a plausibility
attack was recently articulated inMoss v. U.S. Secret Serv.,572 F.3d 962, 970 (9th
Cir. 2009) (Moss I), and later elaborated atMoss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 675 F.3d 1213,
1226 (9th Cir. 2012) amended, 711 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2013) (Moss II), and cert.
granted, 134 S. Ct. 677, (U.S. 2013) (argued March 26, 2013) (Moss III). Moss I
adopted the Supreme Courts suggested framework fromAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 664, (2009) to evaluate a plausibility attack:
[A] court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by
identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.
When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.
Moss Iat 970 (quotingIqbalat 1950). The Court of Appeals reduced the
analysis to three stages: (1) identification of mere conclusions then (2) evaluate
Plaintiffs' specific factual allegations to determine whether we can reasonably infer a
[constitutional] violation from those facts. and (3) compare alternative explanations.
Id.; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1214 (9th Cir. 2011) (The Court first identified
allegations not entitled to the presumption of truth . . . then determined whether the
remaining assumed to be true plausibly suggested an entitlement to relief.).
Traversing the first identification stage alone is insufficient to succeed in the
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 29 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
30/184
-11-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
defense because the existence of conclusions in virtually any pleading is inevitable.
[I]t is virtually impossible logically to distinguish among ultimate facts,
evidence, and conclusions. Essentially any allegation in a pleading must be an
assertion that certain occurrences took place. The pleading spectrum, passing from
evidence through ultimate facts to conclusions, is largely a continuum varying only in
the degree of particularity with which the occurrences are described. Karim-Panahi
v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Weinstein &
Distler, Comments on Procedural Reform: Drafting Pleading Rules, 57 Colum.
L.Rev. 518, 520 521 (1957)).
Moreover, the second and third stage require a comparison between a
plaintiffs allegations alleged to be conclusory (e.g., discriminatory animus
(Iqbal), or restraints effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy (Twombly)),
and defendants alternative innocent explanation (e.g. normal parallel market
behavior (Twombly), or combatting terrorism reasonably resulting in a higher
proportion of middle eastern prisoners (Iqbal)). Where defendants cannot present an
innocent alternative in stage three, the plausibility attack fails and the conclusory
allegation is entitled to the presumption of truth. SeeMoss Imulti-stage analysis,
supra. In Starr v. Baca, the court added to this analysis: If there are two alternative
explanations, one advanced by defendant and the other advanced by plaintiff, both of
which are plausible, plaintiff's complaint survives. Starr at 1215-16. cert. denied,
132 S. Ct. 2101 (2012). See alsoMossI, II, III, infra; Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United
States, 648 F.3d 708, 721 (9th Cir.2011) (allegation that product performed below
industry standards certainly sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion);Daniels
Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.2010); OSU Student Alliance v.
Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2012) (allegation that decision to destroy college
newspaper bins was within college administrations control was conclusory but
sufficient).
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 161 Filed 05/16/14 Page 30 of 184
-
8/12/2019 161 Oppo to Omnibus & Joinders
31/184
-12-
OPPO TO OMNIBUS MTN TO DISMISS13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
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
c.Example Analysis: Moss I:Moss Idemonstrates the analytical progression. Mossplaintiffs were protesters
opposing President Bush while he dined at a Portland, Oregon restaurant. Two
groups of protestersone pro-Bush and one an
top related