Richard Markowicz et al v. Superior Court of State of California et al

Filing 4

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky: Order to Show Cause re dismissal. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/14/2013. ORDER STAYING CASE. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all Defendants in conjunction with service of process or forthwith. (See document for details). (ib)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-1731 CAS (RZ)

Title

RICHARD MARKOWICZ, et al., v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 15, 2013

RALPH ZAREFSKY, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Ilene Bernal

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

In Chambers –
ORDER –
1. TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL (ROOKER AND IMMUNITY);
2. STAYING ACTION

Plaintiffs allege that Superior Court Judge Ronald Sohigian, in presiding over their home-equity-loan
fraud case (no. BC418153), was rude and wrongfully refused to enter default judgments. This Court takes
judicial notice that in response, they petitioned the California Court of Appeal (in case nos. B233602 and
B245783) and California Supreme Court (in case no. S208096), but both higher courts denied relief. The
latter denial occurred on February 4, 2013. Plaintiffs now sue Judge Sohigian and his court, alleging that
his errors and misconduct violated federal and state law.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause in writing within 30 days why this action should not
be dismissed, under what is commonly known as the Rooker/Feldman doctrine, for lack of jurisdiction over
what is essentially an appeal from an unfavorable state-court ruling. See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S.
997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994); see also Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court,
23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994) (doctrine applies even when the challenge asserts federal legal issues). In
addition, Plaintiffs shall show cause why, even if the Court does not abstain under Rooker/Feldman, the
action should not be dismissed with prejudice based on the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. See
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991).
Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this Order on all Defendants in conjunction with service of process
(or, if process already has been served, forthwith thereafter).
Pending resolution of this show-cause order, the Court STAYS this action. No Defendant served
with process need respond to the Complaint until the stay is vacated, but Defendants may file an optional
response to Plaintiff’s return to this Order within 10 days of service of that return.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

igb

Page 1 of 1