161 oppo to omnibus & joinders

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: [email protected] Pacific Highway Ste. 102San Diego, CA 92110Telephone: 858-504-0171Facsimile: 619-231-9143In Pro Se

Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice)Email: [email protected] 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


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



3/184

-2-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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



4/184

-3-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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



5/184

-4-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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



6/184

-5-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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,



7/184

-6-


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



8/184

-7-


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



9/184

-8-


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



10/184

-9-


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)



11/184

-10-


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



12/184

-11-


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



13/184

-12-


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



14/184

-13-


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



15/184

-14-


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



16/184

-15-


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



17/184

-16-


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



18/184

-17-


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



19/184

-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

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



20/184

-1-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.



21/184

-2-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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



22/184

-3-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.



23/184

-4-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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



24/184

-5-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.



25/184

-6-


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



26/184

-7-


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.



27/184

-8-


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



28/184

-9-


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).



29/184

-10-


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



30/184

-11-


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).



31/184

-12-


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

161 oppo to omnibus & joinders

Documents