USDC - DKT 13 - Fine's Combined Response Re State Bar's Motion To Dismiss - Fine v. State Bar II - 10-CV-0048
USDC - DKT 13 - Fine's Combined Response Re State Bar's Motion To Dismiss - Fine v. State Bar II - 10-CV-0048
USDC - DKT 13 - Fine's Combined Response Re State Bar's Motion To Dismiss - Fine v. State Bar II - 10-CV-0048
RICHARD I. FINE
Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4
8
Case No. CV-10-0048 JFW (CW)
RICHARD I. FINE,
9
Plaintiff, COMBINED RESPONSE TO RE-
10 NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS
AND MOTION TO STRIKE RE-
11 vs.
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
12 MOTION TO DISMISS AND
13
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; ENTER \DEFAULT JUDGMENT;
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION
15 SCOTT DREXEL, Chief Trial Counsel OF RICHARD I. FINE
of the State Bar of California; and THE
16
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Date: April 27, 2010
17 (only as a necessary party); Time: 10:00 a.m.
Defendants. Place: Courtroom 640
18
19
20
21
To all parties and their attorneys of record:
22 Please take notice that Plaintiff hereby responds to the Re-Notice of Motion
23
and Motion to Dismiss and moves to strike the Re-Notice of Motion and Motion
24
25 to Dismiss and enter default and default judgment. The hearing is presently set
26
for April 27, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 640 of the U.S. Courthouse
27
-1-
1
The reasons for the Response and Motion to Strike and Enter Default and
2 Default Judgment are:
3
1. The Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss was sent
4
5 electronically to the Clerk after the time to respond to the Complaint had passed
6
and when the State Bar of California, the Board of Governors of the State Bar of
7
8 California, and Scott Drexel, the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of
9
California were in default without an agreement to extend time to respond;
10
2. The untimely Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss was
11
15 filed;
16
4. A memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to
17
18
dismiss has never been filed;
-2-
1
State Bar of California and Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of
2 California, and their same lawyers made the same motion in related case No. CV-
3
08-2906 GW (CW) in which Fine was the Plaintiff. The State Bar Defendants
4
5 lost the Motion. (See Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge filed
6
March.26, 2009, Dkt. # 43, pages 16-18, accepted at Dkt. # 46). The ruling in
7
8 case No. CV-08-2906 is both res judicata and collateral estoppel as to the State
9
Bar Defendants in this case.
10
7. The Proofs of Service and Request to Enter Default show, filed on
11
12 March 17, 2010, that Scott Drexel was served on February 10, 2010, and that the
13
State Bar of California and the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California
14
15 were each served on February 18, 2010, making their responses due on March 2,
16
2010 and March 10, 2010 respectively. As of such dates, PACER and the
17
18
Request to Enter Default show that no response had been filed. They were in
19 default.
20
8. The declaration of Richard I. Fine (hereinafter referred to as “Fine”)
21
22 shows that Fine had not been contacted by the State Bar Defendants, had not
23
agreed to any extensions to respond and had not been served with any documents
24
25 by the State Bar defendants. The Motion to Strike is based upon this Notice of
26
Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration
27
28
-3-
1
of Richard I. Fine and such other evidence as may be presented at the oral
2 hearing.
3
4
Dated this 26th day of March, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
5
7 BY: ____________________________
8 RICHARD I. FINE,
In Pro Per
9
10
11
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
12
17
The Proofs of Service filed on March 17, 2010 show that Scott Drexel,
18
19
Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar, was served on February 10, 2010. His
20 response was due March 2, 2010. The State Bar and the Board of Governors of
21
the State Bar were served on February 18, 2010. Their responses were due on
22
23 March 10, 2010. The Declaration of Richard I. Fine (the “Fine Declaration”)
24
states that Fine had not been contacted by the State Bar Defendants, had not
25
26 agreed to any extensions to respond, and had not been served with any documents
27
by the State Bar Defendants.
28
-4-
1
The State Bar Defendants were in default when they electronically filed
2 their “Re-Notice of Motion and Notion to Dismiss Complaint against State Bar
3
Defendants”.
4
6
II. The State Bar Defendants’ filing should have been “stricken” by the
7 Clerk due to deficiencies on its face and in the docket.
8
9
The State Bar Defendants’ re Re-Notice of Motion and Notion to Dismiss
10
did not have a date next to the electronic signature of Tracey L. McCormick, did
11
12 not have a memorandum of points and authorities attached and had a false
13
address for Fine on the proof of service. Any clerk looking at the document
14
18
and motion to dismiss complaint against State Bar Defendants was ever filed.
19 This would alert the Clerk to the fact that a “re-notice” would not be proper.
20
On March 17, 2010, the Clerk knew that the State Bar Defendants were in
21
22 default as the Proofs of Service and Request to Enter Default were hand-filed on
23
such day. At that time, the Clerk should have removed the electronic filing of the
24
25 “re-notice” and sent a discrepancy notice to the State Bar Defendants as the
26
docket did not show any order extending time for the State Bar Defendants to
27
respond.
28
-5-
1
The Clerk also knew, from the wrong address for Fine on the State Bar
2 Defendants’ Proof of Service, that the State Bar did not serve Fine with the “Re-
3
Notice.”
4
6
III. Fine had confirmed that he has not been contacted by the State Bar
7 Defendants, not given them an extension to respond and has not been
8 served with any documents from them.
9
10 The Fine Declaration confirms that Fine has never been contacted by the
11
State Bar defendants, that Fine never gave them an extension to respond and that
12
13 Fine has never been served with any documents from the State Bar defendants.
14
15
VI. The State Bar Defendants’ Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss
16
Complaint is a sham, filed in bad faith and barred by res judicata and
17 collateral estoppel.
18
19 The same State Bar Defendants brought the same motion in the related case
20
of Fine v. State Bar of California, et al, USDC case No. CV-08-2906 GW (CW).
21
22 The same attorneys represented State Bar Defendants. The complaint sought
23
declaratory relief (declaring Calif. B&P Code Sections 6007(c)(4) and 6106
24
28
-6-
1
The present Verified Complaint seeks declaratory relief (declaring the State
2 Bar Recommendations of Disbarment and Order of Involuntary Inactive
3
Enrollment void and annulled and the resulting California Supreme Court Order
4
5 void and annulled) and injunctive relief (removing all records of disbarment and
6
inactive enrollment, not enforcing such and taking other corrective measures).
7
8 In the “2906 case,” the State Bar Defendants moved to dismiss the State
9
Bar Defendants, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity, that the State Bar is
10
not a person subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the State Bar
11
15 arguments at pages 16-18. Magistrate Woehrle held that the State Bar
16
Defendants’ motion regarding these arguments must be denied as the immunity
17
18
does not extend to prospective injunctive relief.
19 The “2906 case” and the present case are identical in that each seeks
20
declaratory and injunctive relief. The parties are identical. The State Bar
21
25 decision affecting the parties on identical issues, res judicata and collateral
26
estoppel preclude the State Bar Defendants from raising the same defenses in the
27
present case. The State Bar Defendants and their lawyers knew that the Re-
28
-7-
1
Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint was a sham and filed in bad
2 faith.
3
The filing of the “Re-Notice of Motion and Motion” is consistent with the
4
10
Conclusion
11
12 The State Bar Defendants are in default. They have filed a “Re-Notice of
13
Motion and Motion” in bad faith which they never intended to serve on Fine and
14
18
Motion.” Now it is time for the Court to act. Fine respectfully requests that the
19 Court strike the State Bar Defendants’ Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to
20
Dismiss Complaint, enter the default and enter the default judgment based upon
21
22 the facts set forth in the verified complaint, granting the relief prayed for in the
23
Verified Complaint.
24
27 BY: ____________________________
RICHARD I. FINE,
28
In Pro Per
-8-
1
Declaration of Richard I. Fine
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
6
I, Richard I. Fine declare:
13 confinement” since March 4, 2009 in the LA County Men’s Central Jail, 441
14
Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
15
3. At no time since the complaint in this case was filed have I been
16
17 contacted by the State Bar of California, The Board of Governors of the State Bar
18
of California or Scott Drexel, the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of
19
23
4. At no time since the complaint in this case was filed did I agree to
24 give the State Bar Defendants or any one of them, including their lawyers, any
25
extension of time to respond to the complaint.
26
27 5. At no time since the complaint in this case was filed did I receive any
28
document from the State Bar Defendants, or any one of them or their lawyers, nor
-9-
1
have I been “served” with any documents relating to this case by any one of
2 them.
3
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
4
9
BY: ____________________________
10 RICHARD I. FINE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
26
California.
27
28
____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE
-11-