Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
Filing
24
OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case and Abstain #21 filed by Plaintiff Courthouse News Service. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Matteo-Boehm, Rachel)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rachel Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
rachel.matteo-boehm@hro.com
David Greene (SBN 160107)
david.greene@hro.com
Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
leila.knox@hro.com
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: (415) 268-2000
Facsimile: (415) 268-1999
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
12
13
14
Courthouse News Service,
CASE NO. CV11-8083 R (MANx)
15
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
19
v.
Michael D. Planet, in his official capacity
as Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court.
20
Defendant.
21
22
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN
PART AND GRANTING IN PART
THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND
ABSTAIN OF DEFENDANT
MICHAEL D. PLANET
Date:
Nov. 21, 2011
Time:
10:00 am
Courtroom: 8, 2nd Floor
Judge: The Hon. Manuel Real
23
24
The Motion to Dismiss and Abstain (“Motion”) of Defendant Michael D. Planet
25
(“Defendant”), in his official capacity as Court Executive Officer and Clerk of the
26
Ventura County Superior Court, came on for hearing on November 21, 2011, before
27
the Honorable Manuel L. Real. Having considered the papers submitted by the
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING
IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND ABSTAIN
#75288 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
1
parties, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY
2
ORDERED as follows:
3
(1)
As to Plaintiff Courthouse News Service’s first and second causes of
4
action, for violations of the First Amendment and common law rights of access and 42
5
U.S.C. § 1983, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Abstain is DENIED on the
6
grounds that abstention is neither required nor advisable under the abstention
7
doctrines enunciated in O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S. Ct. 669, 38 L. Ed. 2d
8
674 (1974) and Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496, 61 S. Ct.
9
643, 85 L. Ed. 971 (1941). New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of
10
New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 359, 109 S. Ct. 2506, 105 L. Ed. 2d 298 (1989); Family
11
Division Trial Lawyers of the Superior Court-D.C. v. Moultrie, 725 F.2d 695, 703-04
12
(D.C. Cir. 1984), Ripplinger v. Collins, 868 F.2d 1043, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 1989).
13
(2)
In addition, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Abstain is DENIED as to
14
Courthouse News’ first and second causes of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has
15
adequately stated claims upon which relief may be granted. E.g., Shroyer v. New
16
Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010); Doe v. United
17
States Dep’t of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
18
(3)
As to Courthouse News’s third cause of action, for violation of California
19
Rule of Court 2.550, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Abstain is GRANTED on
20
the grounds that Defendant has asserted immunity to Courthouse News’ state law
21
claim under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and hence that
22
claim is now barred.
23
Courthouse News Service shall file an amended complaint in accordance with
24
this Order within 30 days of this Order.
25
Date: ________________, 2011
26
____________________________
The Honorable Manuel L. Real
United States District Court Judge
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING
IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND ABSTAIN
#75288 v1 saf
Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?