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)

Download PDF
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

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?