McKray et al v. California Supreme Court et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Illston granting 15 Motion to Continue (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008)

Case 3:08-cv-04079-SI

Document 15

Filed 11/24/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California e 2 TOM BLAKE unsel ar itting co e this Deputy Attorney General Subm to ser v 3 State Bar No. 51885 directed n all other 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 po order u parties San Francisco, CA 94102-3664 4 n-efiling on. no Telephone: [phone] cti in this a Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] 6 ER C Attorneys for California Supreme Court and N F D IS T IC T O 7 California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, R Division Five 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DEFENDANTS, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA and the California Court of 20 Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, respectfully request that the Case Management 21 Conference be continued in the interest of judicial economy. The CMC is now set for hearing on 22 December 19, 2008, the same day as the hearing of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. 23 The plaintiffs are an attorney in pro se and one of the clients he represented in the underlying 24 state action. They seek an order invalidating certain state-court sanctions awarded against them and 25 a determination that the California Rules of Court governing publication of cases are constitutionally 26 infirm. The California Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have filed a Motion to Dismiss that 27 is currently set for hearing on December 19, 2008, the same day as the CMC. 28
Admin. Motion to Continue CMC' P&A's; [Proposed] Order McKRAY, et al. v. California Supreme Court, et al. C-08-4079-SI

GEORGE A. McKRAY and ANTHONY LAMPERTI, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT; CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, Defendants.

CV 08-04079 SI ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND POSSIBLE REASSIGNMENT (Civil L.R. 7-11) Date: December 19, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10 - 19th Floor

1

A

LI

FO

R NIA

RT U O

NO

RT

H

Case 3:08-cv-04079-SI

Document 15

Filed 11/24/2008

Page 2 of 4

1

The California appellate courts have also filed a notice that the instant case may be deemed

2 related to Hild v. Supreme Court of California, case No. C 07-05107 T EH (No. Dist. Cal.), which 3 is mentioned in the complaint and which espouses the same theory against the California Rules of 4 Court. The Hild case was dismissed by the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson of this Court on 5 February 26, 2008 and is now on appeal as Hild v. Supreme Court of California, case No. 08-15785 6 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 The undersigned attorney for the California Supreme Court and the California Court of Appeal

8 believes that the pending motion to dismiss will resolve the instant matter as a matter of law and 9 therefore respectfully requests that the Case Management Conference in this matter be continued 10 until a date after the hearing of that motion. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 28 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1982).
Admin. Motion to Continue CMC' P&A's; [Proposed] Order McKRAY, et al. v. California Supreme Court, et al. C-08-4079-SI

Dated: November 24, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California /s/ Tom Blake TOM BLAKE Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for California Supreme Court and California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Moving defendants Are the Supreme Court of California and the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five. The state appellate courts have filed a meritorious motion under Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moving for dismissal on grounds, inter alia, of the Rooker-Feldman1/ doctrine, 11th Amendment immunity, the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction, and lack of standing. The undersigned respectfully submits that the interest of both state and federal judicial

2

Case 3:08-cv-04079-SI

Document 15

Filed 11/24/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 economy will be best served by postponing the Case Management Conference until after the 2 Supreme Court's Motion to Dismiss is heard. The Rule 12(b) hearing is set for on December 19, 3 2008, the same day as the CMC. 4 Holding the CMC on the same day as the ispositive motion would, in this case, impose on

5 counsel for the California judiciary the not-inconsiderable expense of conferring with the pro se 6 counsel and preparing a formal CMC statement in a case that will in all likelihood be moot because 7 District Courts lack jurisdiction to review state court decisions, including sanctions, and because the 8 California publication rules are, as the courts have repeatedly found, not infirm. 9 10 11 12 13 14 PROPOSED REVISED CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND ADR PROCEDURES Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2(d)(3), the accompanying proposed revised Case Management THE COURT MAY MODIFY THE CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE The Court has the authority to modify the Case Management schedule. Civil L.R. 16-2(d).

15 schedule is submitted: 16 12/19/2008 17 2/19/2009 18 3/20/2009 19 Hearing on the Rule 12(b) motion and the other pending motions (same as now set). Issuance of ruling on motion to dismiss as to Judge Robertson and other defendants. Case Management Conference for any parties remaining in the case.

As the matter before the Court turns on wholly legal issues, principally the question of whether

20 the District Court may redetermine State court litigation results, Alternative Dispute Resolution is 21 not appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned does not suggest scheduling ADR. 22 23 CONCLUSION As the Rule 12(b) motion is expected to be dispositive, certainly as to Judge Robertson and

24 most likely as to all defendants, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Case Management 25 Conference be postponed to a date after the Rule 12(b) motion so as to spare the judicial branch of 26 27 28
Admin. Motion to Continue CMC' P&A's; [Proposed] Order McKRAY, et al. v. California Supreme Court, et al. C-08-4079-SI

3

Case 3:08-cv-04079-SI

Document 15

Filed 11/24/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 the State of California the expense of preparing for a CMC that is likely to be moot. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [Proposed] ORDER For good cause shown, the Case Management Conference is rescheduled to /s/ Tom Blake TOM BLAKE Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for California Supreme Court and California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five Dated: November 24, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California

1/30/09 @ 2:__ p. ____________00__, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. m. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Admin. Motion to Continue CMC' P&A's; [Proposed] Order McKRAY, et al. v. California Supreme Court, et al. C-08-4079-SI

_______________________________________ SUSAN ILSTON United States District Judge

4