1

RICHARD I. FINE
Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
7

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

28 located at 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles CA, 90012.

-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

12 “filed” by an electronic process, apparently without the knowledge of the Clerk;

13
3. An “original” notice of motion and motion to dismiss has never been
14

15 filed;
16
4. A memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to
17

18
dismiss has never been filed;

19 5. According to the copy of the Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to

20
Dismiss on PACER, such document does not show a date for the electronic
21

22 signature of Tracey L. McCormick, does not contain a memorandum of points

23
and authorities and shows a wrong address for Plaintiff on the Proof of Service
24

25 indicating that it was never served on the Plaintiff.

26
6. The Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss was filed in bad
27
faith as the Defendants, State Bar of California, the Board of Governors of the
28

-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

13 I. The State Bar Defendants’ Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss

14 Complaint against State Bar Defendants was inadvertently filed due to
electronic filing as the State Bar Defendants were in default and no
15
agreement to extend time to respond existed.
16

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

15 would immediately see these discrepancies.

16
Additionally, the docket does not show that any “original” notice of motion
17

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

25 unconstitutional) and injunctive relief (enjoining their enforcement against any

26
member of the State Bar).
27

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

12 Defendants enjoy quasi-judicial immunity. Magistrate Judge Woehrle, in her

13
Report and Recommendation dated March 26, 2009, addressed all three
14

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

22 Defendants’ lawyers are identical.

23
With identical parties, identical issues, identical lawyers and a pre-existing
24

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

5 “fraud on the Court” conduct set forth in the Verified Complaint.

6
The sole purpose of the “Re-Notice of Motion and Motion” was to harass
7

8 and oppress Fine and to delay the default.

9

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

15 did not serve on Fine.

16
The Clerk should never have “filed” their “re Re-Notice of Motion and
17

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

25 Dated this 26th day of March, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

26

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:

7 The following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called to

8
testify, I could and would testify thereto as follows:
9

10 1. I am the Plaintiff in the present case.

11
2. At all times relevant hereto I have been held in “coercive
12

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

20 California, or any of their lawyers purporting to represent them in the case

21
(collectively referred to as the “State Bar Defendants”).
22

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

5 America that the foregoing is true and correct.

6
Executed this 26th day of March 2010 at Los Angeles, California.
7

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

5 I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho

6 Dominguez, CA 90220. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party
7 to the above-entitled action.
8
On March 26, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as
9 COMBINED RESPONSE TO RE-NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS
10 AND MOTION TO STRIKE RE-NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
11 TO DISMISS AND ENTER \DEFAULT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM
12 OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF RICHARD I.
13 FINE on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which
14 was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United
15
States Mail, addressed as follows:
16
Lawrence C. Yee
17 Mark Torres-Gil
Tracey L. McCormick
18 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
19 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
180 Howard Street
20 San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
21
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
22
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
23
correct.
24
Executed on this 26th day of January, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez,
25

26
California.

27

28
____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE

-11-