Ringgold et al v. Brown et al

Filing 65

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/22/13 DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Jurisdiction; GRANTING 31 Motion for Sanctions and ORDERING plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart to pay or make arrangements to pay, jointly and severally, sanctions in the total amount of $9,520.00 to the Office of the Attorney General of California within 21 days; GRANTING 42 13 Motions to Dismiss. CASE CLOSED. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

NINA RINGGOLD, ESQ. as named
Trustee of the Aubry Family
Trust and named Executor
under the will of Robert
Aubry on behalf of the trust
and estate and all similarly
situated entities and/or
persons; et al.;

18
19
20
21
22

2:12-CV-00717-JAM-JFM

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs,

16
17

No.

v.
JERRY BROWN in his Individual
and Official Capacity as
Governor of the State of
California and in his
Individual and Official
Capacity as Former Attorney
General of the State of
California; et al.;
Defendants.

23
24

Plaintiffs in this matter are Nina Ringgold, Esq., Justin

25

Ringgold-Lockhart, and the Law Offices of Nina Ringgold and all

26

current clients thereof (the “Law Office Clients”).

27

are California Governor Jerry Brown, California Attorney General

28

Kamala Harris, and California State Auditor Elaine Howle.
1

Defendants

The

1

current matters pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Amended

2

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 32, errata at Doc. #

3

34); Defendants Brown and Harris’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13)

4

and their Motion for Sanctions (Doc. # 17); and Defendant Howle’s

5

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 42).1

6

each party filed separate Requests for Judicial Notice (Doc. ##

7

14, 42-2, 45).

8

Plaintiffs also opposing and seeking to strike both of

9

Defendants’ Requests for Judicial Notice (Doc. # 45).

In support of their motions,

Each substantive motion is fully briefed with

Plaintiffs

10

also filed a subsequent Motion for Accommodation (Doc. # 61),

11

which is discussed below.

12
13

I.

BACKGROUND

14

This matter arises from Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the

15

administration of the state courts of California and with several

16

orders related to a revocable trust issued by the California

17

Probate Court.

18

state courts, Plaintiffs bring the present litigation in federal

19

court claiming violation of their constitutional rights, the

20

American with Disabilities Act, and the California Constitution

21

among other causes of action.

22

causes of action in their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. #

23

5).

In order to challenge adverse outcomes in the

In total, Plaintiffs allege 20

24

The gist of Plaintiffs’ theory is that all California

25

Superior Court judges operating in Los Angeles County resigned

26
27
28

1

The motions were determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing for all
motions was originally scheduled for January 9, 2013.
2

1

their positions by accepting employment benefits from the County

2

of Los Angeles prior to a state court decision eliminating the

3

practice.

4

(Ct. App. 2008).

5

all state court decisions adverse to Plaintiffs, and presumably

6

anyone at all, prior to the Sturgeon decision are void, including

7

those related to the aforementioned revocable trust.

8

the first time that Plaintiffs’ existential challenge to the

9

state judicial system has been raised in federal court.

10

See Sturgeon v. Cnty. of L.A., 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242
Accordingly, Plaintiffs take the position that

This is not

Prior to the present lawsuit, Plaintiffs Ringgold and

11

Ringgold Lockhart litigated the validity of state court decisions

12

related to the revocable trust in state court.

13

declared vexatious litigants pursuant to California Code of Civil

14

Procedure § 391, et seq., by California trial and appellate

15

courts.

16

court where they were also declared vexatious litigants.

17

Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cnty. of L.A., No. 11-1725-R, Doc. # 122

18

(C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2011) (the “December 6, 2011 Order”).

19

federal case in the Central District of California, District

20

Court Judge Real enjoined Plaintiffs Ringgold-Lockhart and

21

Ringgold from filing any action related to the Aubry Revocable

22

Family Trust (“Aubry Trust”) or the administration of state

23

courts without first obtaining permission from Judge Real.

24

at 7.

They were each

Failing in state court, Plaintiffs turned to federal

25
26
27
28
3

In the

Id.

1
2
3
4

II.
A.

OPINION

Requests for Judicial Notice
1.

Defendants’ Motions

Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of

5

documents filed in prior litigation involving Plaintiffs Ringgold

6

and Ringgold-Lockhart (Doc. ## 14, 16-2).

7

request on the grounds that the documents are incomplete and they

8

contain inadmissible hearsay.

9

Plaintiffs oppose the

Generally, a court may not consider material beyond the

10

pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss.

11

material attached to or relied on by the complaint so long as

12

authenticity is not disputed, or matters of public record

13

provided that they are not subject to reasonable dispute.

14

Sherman v. Stryker Corp., 2009 WL 2241664 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar.

15

30, 2009) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688

16

(9th Cir. 2001) and Fed. R. Evid. 201).

17

The exceptions are

E.g.,

In this case, the items provided by Defendants were all

18

filed in prior litigations, making them the proper subject of

19

judicial notice.

20

consider filings made by parties in other lawsuits for the truth

21

of the matter asserted in them, but that limitation does not

22

extend to orders issued by other federal courts.

23
24

2.

Plaintiffs are correct that the Court may not

Plaintiffs’ Motion

Plaintiffs seek judicial notice of a series of documents

25

filed in previous litigation.

As discussed with respect to

26

Defendants’ motions, the Court may take judicial notice of such

27

documents, but not the truth of the matter asserted in them.

28

This limitation does not extend to orders issued by other Courts.
4

1

Plaintiffs also seek judicial notice of news articles, but the

2

articles are inadmissible hearsay and will not be considered.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in

4

part.

5
6

B.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1.

Legal Standard

7

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the

8

District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

When a defendant brings a motion to

10

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule

11

12(b)(1), the plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject

12

matter jurisdiction.

13

1095, 1102, n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Once challenged, the party

14

asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving

15

its existence.”).

16

Rattlesnake Coal. v. U.S. E.P.A., 509 F.3d

There are two permissible jurisdictional attacks under Rule

17

12(b)(1): a facial attack, where the court’s inquiry is limited

18

to the allegations in the complaint; or a factual attack, which

19

permits the court to look beyond the complaint at affidavits or

20

other evidence.

21

1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).

22

challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint

23

are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction,

24

whereas in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of

25

the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke

26

federal jurisdiction.”

27

(S.D. Cal. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

28

Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d
“In a facial attack, the

Li v. Chertoff, 482 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1175

If the moving party asserts a facial challenge, the court
5

1

must assume that the factual allegations asserted in the

2

complaint are true and construe those allegations in the light

3

most favorable to the plaintiff.

4

Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F. 3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.

5

2003)).

6

may resolve the factual disputes by “look[ing] beyond the

7

complaint to matters of public record, without having to convert

8

the motion into one for summary judgment, and a court “need not

9

presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegations.”

10

If the moving party asserts a factual attack, a court

White

v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000).

11
12

Id. at 1175 (citing Warren v.

2.

Discussion

Defendants in this action seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’

13

claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on

14

the grounds that Plaintiffs did not seek and receive pre-filing

15

approval from Judge Real in violation of the December 6, 2011

16

Order.

17

an injunction and this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a

18

challenge to that injunction nor the power to ignore it.

19

Defendants argue that Judge Real’s order is in actuality

Plaintiffs respond that Defendants’ argument is frivolous.

20

Plaintiffs contend that the December 6, 2011 Order only bars

21

actions brought by Plaintiff Ringgold in propia persona, but not

22

in her capacity as an attorney, and that the present action is

23

brought by Plaintiff Ringgold only in her capacity as an

24

attorney.

25

unambiguously seeks personal relief for Plaintiff Ringgold, and

26

the pre-filing order also applies to Plaintiff Ringgold-Lockhart,

27

who is named as a plaintiff in this matter.

28

that Plaintiff Ringgold included the clients of her law office in

In reply, Defendants point out that the FAC

6

Defendants argue

1

this action in order to circumvent the December 6, 2011 Order,

2

but that merely including additional parties does not give the

3

Court subject matter jurisdiction in light of the vexatious

4

litigant order.

5

District Courts have the inherent power to restrain the

6

filings of vexatious litigants through a pre-filing order.

7

Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.

8

1999).

9

filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets

10

certain requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or

11

filing declarations that support the merits of the case.”

12

Appellate jurisdiction over Federal District Court decisions

13

rests with the United States Courts of Appeals.

14

§ 1291.

15

“Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant from

Id.

28 U.S.C.

It is clear that Plaintiffs’ FAC violates the letter and

16

spirit of the December 6, 2011 Order.

Plaintiffs’ argument that

17

Plaintiff Ringgold appears only in a representative capacity is

18

at best disingenuous.

19

Plaintiff Ringgold related to the Aubry Trust and property of the

20

trust.2

21

a representative capacity for the Aubry Trust fails because she

22

was removed as trustee by the California Probate Court.

23

Additionally, the December 6, 2011 Order also applies to

24

Plaintiff Ringgold-Lockhart, and he is clearly participating in

25

this lawsuit in his personal capacity.

26

2011 order also enjoins both Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-

The FAC clearly seeks personal relief for

Plaintiff Ringgold’s argument that she is named only in

Finally, the December 6,

27
28

2

See FAC ¶¶ 5-6, 44, 144(a), 144(e), 145(b), 220, 235.
7

1

Lockhart from filing actions challenging the administration of

2

state courts.

3

violates the December 6, 2011 Order for this reason as well.

4

Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff

5

Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockharts’ claims because Plaintiffs failed

6

to obtain pre-filing authorization under the December 6, 2011

7

Order, and jurisdiction to review that order rests only in the

8

United States Courts of Appeals.

9

The FAC is, overall, such a challenge and it

Also included in this litigation are all of the clients of

10

Plaintiff Ringgold’s law office.

After reviewing the FAC in

11

detail, the Court is unable to determine how the claims brought

12

on behalf of Plaintiff Ringgold’s law office meaningfully differ

13

from those asserted on behalf of Plaintiffs Ringgold and

14

Ringgold-Lockhart.

15

inclusion of Plaintiff Ringgold’s clients as additional

16

plaintiffs appears to be an attempt to avoid the consequences of

17

the December 6, 2011 Order.

18

the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that all plaintiffs “owned or had a

19

right to possession of property of the [Aubry] trust.”

20

that Plaintiffs fail to distinguish between the claims related to

21

the trust and the claims generally challenging the administration

22

of the state courts indicates that the true purpose of this

23

litigation relates to Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart’s

24

rejected claims to the Aubry Trust.

25

Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart’s claims are indistinguishable

26

from the Law Office Client claims.

27

other would make the FAC nonsensical because significant portions

28

of the FAC request relief specific to the Aubry Trust, but there

As Defendants meritoriously argue, the

For instance, in paragraph 235 of

8

The fact

As a result, Plaintiffs

Dismissing one without the

1

is no allegation that the Law Office Clients have any cognizable

2

interest in the trust.

3

Accordingly, once Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-

4

Lockhart’s claims are dismissed, the Law Office Clients’ claims

5

must also be dismissed.

6

to rewrite substantial portions of the FAC and the prayer for

7

relief, but stating a valid claim and the relief sought is

8

Plaintiffs’ burden.

9
10

C.

Any other result would require the Court

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)-(3).

Motions to Dismiss

Based on the Court’s holding that it lacks subject matter

11

jurisdiction

over

the

present

action,

Defendants’

motions

12

to

dismiss Plaintiffs claims on other grounds are denied as moot.

13

D.

Motion for Sanctions

14

Defendants Harris and Brown contend that sanctions pursuant

15

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 are appropriate.

They

16

argue that Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart violated the

17

December 6, 2011 Order by filing this action and that Nina

18

Ringgold in her capacity as Plaintiffs’ Counsel violated her duty

19

under Rule 11 by filing this action.

20

seek an award of sanctions in the amount of $10,030 to reimburse

21

their attorney’s fees and an award of $10,000 to the Eastern

22

District of California to deter further baseless filings by

23

Plaintiffs.

24

2011 Order does not apply to this litigation for the same reasons

25

previously discussed in this order.

Defendants Harris and Brown

Plaintiffs respond by arguing that the December 6,

26

Even though a court may lack subject matter jurisdiction

27

over a complaint, it may still impose Rule 11 sanctions where

28

such sanctions are warranted because the imposition of sanctions
9

1

is a collateral matter that does not go to the merits of the

2

underlying claim.

3

(1992).

4

allegations and factual contentions which “have evidentiary

5

support,” and the claims and other legal contentions must be

6

“warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument.”

7

R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)-(3).

8

made “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause

9

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 137–38

Rule 11 requires that pleadings and motions contain

Fed.

Additionally, Rule 11 prohibits filings

10

. . .”

11

the primary focus of Rule 11 proceedings, a district court must

12

conduct a two-prong inquiry to determine (1) whether the

13

complaint is legally or factually baseless from an objective

14

perspective, and (2) if the attorney has conducted a reasonable

15

and competent inquiry before signing and filing it.”

16

v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal

17

quotations and citation omitted).

18

“to denote a filing that is both baseless and made without a

19

reasonable and competent inquiry.”

20

Securities Litigation, 78 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir. 1996).

21

requires that the party moving for sanctions notice the motion

22

and give the other party at least 21 days to withdraw the

23

pleading at issue.

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1).

When, as here, a “complaint is

Christian

The word “frivolous” is used

In re Keegan Management Co.,
Rule 11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).

Defendants Brown and Harris notified Plaintiffs on July 20,

25

2012 that they would seek Rule 11 sanctions.

The motion itself

26

was filed on August 17, 2012 and originally noticed for hearing

27

on September 19, 2012.

28

Rule 11’s notice procedures.

Accordingly, Defendants complied with

10

1

In the present matter, it is apparent that Rule 11 Sanctions

2

are warranted.

Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart do not

3

dispute that they were aware of the December 6, 2011 Order.

4

Instead, they argue that the order does not bar the present

5

action.

6

This lawsuit clearly seeks relief on behalf of Plaintiff Ringgold

7

and Ringgold-Lockhart, who are subject to the December 6, 2011

8

Order.

9

FAC, the filing of which clearly violates the December 6, 2011

For the reasons already discussed, the Court disagrees.

Any contrary argument contradicts the plain terms of the

10

order.

Because the filing of the FAC was barred by the December

11

6, 2011 Order, it had no chance of success and choosing to file

12

it was plainly frivolous.

13

violation of a direct order not to do so allows this Court to

14

infer that the filing was made for an improper purpose, i.e., to

15

circumvent the vexatious litigant order issued in the Central

16

District of California.

17

929 F.2d 1358, 1365 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that courts may be

18

able to infer an improper purpose based on the frivolousness of a

19

filing).

20

Sanctions is granted.

Additionally, filing a pleading in

See Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp.,

Accordingly, Defendants Brown and Harris’s Motion for

21

In support of their motion for sanctions, Defendants Brown

22

and Harris request an award of sanctions in the amount of their

23

attorney’s fees related to this action and the Rule 11 motion.

24

After reviewing the affidavits submitted in support of the Rule

25

11 motion, the Court finds that the requested hourly rate of $170

26

is reasonable.

27

by Defendants’ counsel on these matters to be reasonable.

28

Defendants are not entitled to an award for three hours spent

Additionally, the Court finds the 56 hours worked

11

1

attending a hearing on this matter because no hearing was held.

2

Defendants are therefore entitled to an award in the amount of

3

$9,520.

4

E.

5

The final motion pending before the Court is a motion made

6

by Plaintiffs’ counsel for an accommodation due to her physical

7

disability.

8

documents citing her physical disability and her currently heavy

9

work load related to other litigation.

10

Motion for Accommodation

Plaintiff asks the Court to consider late-filed

Defendants have not

responded to this motion.

11

The Court reviewed Plaintiffs’ late-filed documents and

12

determined that considering them for purposes of this order will

13

not prejudice Defendants.

14

never reached due to the Court’s lack of subject matter

15

jurisdiction, making any possible advantage gained by Plaintiffs’

16

late filings moot.

17

late-filed documents, Plaintiffs’ motion for accommodation is

18

denied as moot.

Since the Court reviewed and considered the

19
20

The merits of Plaintiffs’ claims were

III. ORDER
Motion to Dismiss.

Defendants Brown, Harris, and Howle’s

21

Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED because the Court lacks subject

22

matter jurisdiction over this action.

23

prejudice because the Court has not reached the underlying merits

24

of this litigation.

25

Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart unless they seek and

26

receive pre-filing approval from Judge Real of the Central

27

District of California.

28

Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart may then move this Court for leave

The dismissal is without

Leave to amend is denied with respect to

If such approval is obtained, Plaintiffs

12

1

to file another complaint.

2

not apply to the Law Office Client Plaintiffs, they may file an

3

amended Complaint within 21 days.

4

claims related to the Aubry Trust or any other claim that seeks

5

relief on behalf of Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart.

6

Counsel for the Law Office Clients is cautioned to carefully

7

consider whether any such filing comports with Rule 11 prior to

8

filing it and certifying it with her signature.

9

wish to file an amended pleading, Plaintiffs should file a notice

10
11

Since the pre-filing requirement does

Any amended filing must avoid

If they do not

of dismissal.
Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.

Plaintiffs Ringgold and

12

Ringgold-Lockhart are hereby ordered to pay or make arrangements

13

to pay, jointly and severally, sanctions in the total amount of

14

$9,520.00 to the Office of the Attorney General of California

15

within 21 days.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13