CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN., a
Delaware Public Benefit Corporation,
and COLBERN C. STUART, an
individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION, a California
Corporation;
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN., a
Delaware Public Benefit Corporation,
and COLBERN C. STUART, an
individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION, a California
Corporation;
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN., a
Delaware Public Benefit Corporation,
and COLBERN C. STUART, an
individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION, a California
Corporation;
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 1 of 5
JAMES B. GILPIN, Bar No. 151466
James.Gilpin@bbklaw.com MATTHEW L. GREEN, Bar No. 227904 Matthew. Green@bbklaw.com BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 655 W. Broadway, 15th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-1300 Facsimile: (619) 233-6118 Attorneys for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (erroneously sued as SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. 25508.00086\8470708. I Case No. 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM) Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Date: Time: Courtroom: December 19, 2013 3:30 p.m. 4C [NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS REQUESTED BY COURT] Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013 REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT. FOR SANCTIONS l 3-cv-1944-CAB (BLM) Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a:: 11 0 0 ~ ~ -' I!' o 12 "- a:: UJ - 0 ~ - (\J [;] w . Ol ii: ~ <( 13 >:'.:;:: u [;:000 01-<1:0 :;:: (/) 0 w 14 '.) :xJ :ll 0 I- iii z (/) w <( :xJ:;:: (/) 15 UJ UJ (() 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, erroneously sued as Superior Court of San Diego County ("Superior Court"), respectfully submits the following reply to Plaintiff Colbern C. Stuart's ("Stuart") opposition to the Superior Court's motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children ("CCFC"), Lexevia, PC ("Lexevia"), and Stuart (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). 1 This motion for sanctions arises out of Plaintiffs' presentation to the Court of a Complaint in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (b) and Local Civil Rule 83.1. Plaintiffs' Complaint is being presented for an improper purpose, namely to harass the Superior Court and its judicial officers and employees, and the claims against the Superior Court are not warranted by law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 l(b)(l), (2). The Superior Court therefore seeks an award of reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,675.00, which is the amount of attorneys' fees the Superior Court incurred to prepare its motion to dismiss.2 (Doc. No. 16.) Stuart's opposition criticizes the Superior Court for "parroting" its motion to dismiss, devotes substantial space to arguing the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, and attempts to justify the purpose for filing this action. (Doc. No. 56 at 2:19-4:8, 5:13- 19:16.) Because the Superior Court's motion for sanctions is based on Plaintiffs' filing of the Complaint, Stuart's criticism regarding the similarities between the sanctions motion and the motion to dismiss is puzzling. As to the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, the absence of any chance of success is detailed in the Superior Court's moving and reply papers for the motion to dismiss, as well as the moving papers for the sanctions motion. See Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, Similar to the motion to dismiss, CCFC and Lexevia have not filed any opposition to the motion for sanctions. Both entities remain unrepresented by counsel, and Lexevia is a suspended corporation. 2 This figure does not include attorneys' fees incurred to prepare the reply brief for the motion to dismiss, or any fees incurred to prepare the motion for sanctions, all of which are recoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. ll(c)(2), (4); Buster v. Greisen, 104 F.3d 1186, 1190, fn. 5 (9th Cir. 1997). 25508.00086\8470708. I -1- REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT. FOR SANCTIONS I 3-cv-1944-CAB (BLM) Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n: 11 0 0
_j f!: 0 12 "- n: ill - 0 (\j Ul w . ()) w ii'. <( 13 u 0 0 Or-<(<.'.l lll 0 w 14 f- Iii z Ul w <( Ul 15 ill ill (lJ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 762 F.2d 243, 254 (2nd Cir. 1985). In the interest of brevity and reducing the burden on the Court resulting from Plaintiffs' filing of this action, the numerous grounds supporting the dismissal of the claims against the Superior Court are not repeated here. The only remaining argument in Stuart's opposition that warrants discussion concerns the purpose for which this action was filed. The inclusion of the residential addresses of Judges Trentacosta, Schall, Alksne, and Wohlfeil in the Complaint, coupled with the mass dissemination of the Complaint on the Internet, is demonstrative of Plaintiffs' intent to harass the Superior Court and its judicial officers and employees. (Compl. <JI<JI 11, 22, 23, 29; Doc. No. 4, at 6: 18-7:5.) Despite Stuart's arguments to the contrary, the publication of judges' home addresses is nothing more than a scare tactic used to advance Plaintiffs' "reform efforts" in "cur[ing] the systematic affliction" that Plaintiffs perceive to exist in the family court system. (See Doc. No. 56 at 5:16-19.) In a misguided attempt to justify the inclusion of judges' residential addresses, Stuart asserts that the addresses are "required" to establish venue under 28 U.S.C. 139l(b). (Doc. No. 56 at 6:5-8, 6:11-13.) Contrary to Stuart's assertion, all that need be alleged to establish venue based on the residency of a defendant is that the defendant resides in a particular judicial district. 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b )( 1 ). Not only is a home address not required, but Section l(h)(5) of the Court's General Order 550 prohibits parties from including home addresses in all court filings. While Stuart appears to argue that General Order 550's prohibition does not apply because this action is akin to a criminal case, (Doc. No. 56 at 11:15-12:4), Stuart also acknowledges it is not a criminal case. Moreover, even if the rule for criminal cases applied to this action, only the city and state may be listed and only if necessary. (Gen. Order 550 l(h)(5).) Given harassment is the ostensible purpose of Plaintiffs' inclusion of judges' homes addresses, and that one of 25508.00086\8470708. I - 2 - REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT. FOR SANCTIONS l 3-cv-1944-CAB (BLM) Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0: 11 0 0 a.. _J _J "-- -' F= o 12 "-- 0: Ill 0 - (\) UJ w . ()) w ii'. <( 13 <:> :<: :;;: () l::: 14 0 0 Oi--<(l'.l :;;: UJ 0 w 14 '.) gj 0 f- In z UJ w <( :;;: UJ 15 Ill Ill <O 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs' primary objectives in filing this action is simply to publicize their alleged "reform efforts," (Doc. No. 56 at 7:4-7; Doc. No. 56-1, Ex. A), sanctions are warranted. 3 Dated: December 12, 2013 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By: /s/ Matthew L. Green JAMES B. GILPIN MATTHEW L. GREEN Attorneys for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (erroneously sued as SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY) 3 Stuart also challenges the Superior Court's standing to object to Plaintiffs' inclusion of the residential addresses of Judges Trentacosta, Schall, Alksne, and Wohlfeil. (Doc. No. 56 at 11:11- 13.) Stuart's standing objection is curious. Stuart has made it clear that he "appears in this litigation only prose," (Doc. No. 19-1 at 6:6-7.) Yet, in his opposition to the sanctions motion, Stuart believes he has standing to defend the ability of CCFC and Lexevia to proceed in this action without counsel, as well as Lexevia's capacity to proceed as a suspended corporation. (Doc. No. 10:11-11:8.) 25508.00086\8470708. l - 3 - REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT. FOR SANCTIONS 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM) Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0:: 11 0 0 ~ ti _, i!: o 12 u. 0: Ill 0 tl (\j U) w . a> w i i ~ <t:. 13 (,/ '<: 3: 0 i::KJOc) 01-<f.l? 3:ui0w 14 :):Jlffio I- ti z U) w <t:. :Jj 3: U) 15 Ill Ill ({) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the court's CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b )(2)(E). Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this 12th day of December 2013. 25508.00086\8470708.I /s/ Matthew L. Green -4 REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT FOR SANCTIONS 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
California Coalition For Families and Children Preliminary Injunction Regarding "Abuse" Standard For Domestic Violence Protective Orders - First Amendment Violation