Flattum v. State of California Department of Consumer Affairs et al
Filing
21
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/13/2012 that the hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, currently scheduled for 4/19/2012, is VACATED; RECOMMENDING that Defendant's # 18 motion to dismiss, be denied without prejudice; and Plaintiff's # 19 motion to stay proceedings, be granted, but only for the reasons stated in this opinion; and this action be stayed until the administrative proceedings in state court are concluded; Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
GORDON H. FLATTUM,
11
12
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-11-2711 LKK GGH PS
vs.
13
14
15
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This
18
proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Presently before the court are
19
defendant State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Accountancy’s motion
20
to dismiss, filed February 28, 2012, and noticed for hearing on April 19, 2012, and plaintiff’s
21
motion to stay proceedings, filed April 3, 2012, but not noticed for hearing. Having reviewed the
22
motions, the court has determined that oral argument is not necessary, and now issues the
23
following order and findings and recommendations.
24
BACKGROUND
25
The complaint alleges that plaintiff, a former Certified Public Accountant
26
(“CPA”) in Washington whose license was suspended due to a criminal conviction, was
1
1
improperly denied a license to be a CPA in California. (Compl. at ¶ 4.) The complaint also
2
alleges violations by defendant in the administrative process following the denial, including the
3
allegation that after plaintiff requested a hearing, the California Board of Accountancy (“CBA”)
4
offered him a “stipulated settlement offer” to which he was originally amenable, but then was
5
informed by the CBA that it did not wish to settle out of court but preferred a hearing. (Id. at ¶
6
12-13.) Plaintiff alleges that the CBA then denied him his right to a hearing based on “time
7
constraints of Section 487.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) Plaintiff implies that he relied on the settlement offer
8
which caused the deadline for an administrative hearing to pass. Plaintiff alleges violations of
9
numerous federal criminal statutes, as well as the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth
10
Amendments. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
11
DISCUSSION
12
By his motion to stay, plaintiff seeks to put this case on hold until after his
13
scheduled June 6, 2012 hearing with the State of California’s Office of Administrative Hearings.
14
He claims that this administrative hearing “may resolve all issues presently pending before the
15
Court at this time.”
16
The concern for comity and federalism require the courts to refrain from
17
interfering in pending state civil proceedings where important state interests are involved.
18
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 95 S. Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975); Juidice v. Vail,
19
430 U.S. 327, 97 S. Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). This doctrine of abstention applies to state
20
administrative proceedings where there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding that implicates an
21
important state interest and that provides a full and fair opportunity to litigate a claim. See
22
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411
23
U.S. 564, 576-577, 93 S. Ct. 2371, 2377, 60 L.Ed.2d (1973); Middlesex County Ethic Committee
24
v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982). While
25
Younger abstention typically requires dismissal by the court, a stay of the proceedings is
26
appropriate where there has been a claim for damages. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th
2
1
Cir. 2004). A reading of the complaint indicates that Younger abstention is appropriate to the
2
extent plaintiff has a pending state administrative proceeding.
3
In Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar
Association, 457 U.S. 423, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982),
the Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for determining when
to apply Younger to a civil proceeding, holding that abstention is
required so long as the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing; (2)
implicate “important state interests”; and (3) provide an adequate
opportunity to raise federal questions. 457 U.S. at 432, 102 S.Ct.
2515. To these three threshold requirements, we recently
articulated an implied fourth requirement that (4) the federal court
action would “ ‘enjoin the proceeding, or have the practical effect
of doing so.’ ” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143,
1148–49 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v. County of Solano, 657 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir. 2011).
11
Here, plaintiff’s administrative action with the CBA was pending at the time
12
plaintiff filed this action, and is still pending. (Compl. ¶ 13, Mot. for Stay.) Second, the grant or
13
denial of a license to practice accountancy is an important state interest for which a complete set
14
of procedures has been enacted. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 5070, et seq. Third, plaintiff has
15
the opportunity to raise any constitutional challenges through California’s writ of mandate
16
procedure.1 Saraswati v. County of San Diego, 2010 WL 4569888, *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2010),
17
quoting Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 332-33 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding that writ of
18
mandate procedure fulfills Younger’s third requirement in providing “meaningful opportunity for
19
[a federal plaintiff] to present his constitutional claims for independent judicial review.”). See
20
also Dowden v. City of Sacramento, 40 F. Supp.2d 1146, 1149, n. 1 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (finding
21
plaintiff had adequate opportunity to litigate constitutional claims in judicial proceeding to
22
review administrative ruling). Fourth, for plaintiff to obtain relief in federal court would
23
effectively invalidate the CBA decision and preempt the administrative proceedings now in
24
process, thereby having the effect of enjoining those proceedings.
25
1
26
Plaintiff has the burden to show he is barred from raising federal claims in the state
court action. Lebbos v. Judges of Superior Court, 883 F.2d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1989).
3
1
Although the Younger requirements are satisfied, dismissal of this case is not
2
appropriate because plaintiff seeks damages. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the
3
action be stayed as opposed to dismissed. Although defendant requests dismissal based on
4
Eleventh Amendment immunity, and dismissal on this basis would be correct; see Will v.
5
Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63-67, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304 (1989) (states and state
6
officers sued in their official capacity are not considered persons under section 1983 because
7
immune from liability under Eleventh Amendment and doctrine of sovereign immunity);
8
granting dismissal to defendant with leave to amend at this stage of the proceedings would be
9
inappropriate, i.e., it is much more logistically appropriate to dismiss with leave to amend after a
10
stay is lifted, if at all.2 For this reason, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be vacated without
11
prejudice to its renewal after the stay is lifted.
12
CONCLUSION
13
14
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss,
currently scheduled for April 19, 2012, is vacated.
15
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
16
1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed February 28, 2012, (dkt. no. 18), be
17
denied without prejudice; and
18
19
2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings, filed April 3, 2012, (dkt. no. 19), be
granted, but only for the reasons stated in this opinion; and
20
3. This action be stayed until the administrative proceedings in state court are
21
concluded.
22
\\\\\
23
24
25
26
2
Indeed, the entire litigation might go away depending on the outcome of the hearing. In
any event, granting leave to amend at this point to name individuals, spending resources to
litigate the individual’s presence in this lawsuit, with the potential for a Younger stay being
enacted at that point as plaintiff travels through the state court system seems highly wasteful and
inefficient.
4
1
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
2
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
3
fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may
4
file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
5
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the
6
objections shall be served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The
7
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
8
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
9
DATED: April 13, 2012
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH:076
Flattum2711.fr.wpd
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?