Robertson v. Honn et al

Filing 115

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/30/2018. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WADE ANTHONY ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 58
RICHARD A. HONN, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-01724-JD

Pro se plaintiff Wade Anthony Robertson is a former attorney admitted to practice in

13

California. A federal jury found that he had committed malpractice and breached his fiduciary

14

duties to a business partner, and that he had done so in a manner warranting punitive damages. A

15

federal court of appeals affirmed the verdict. Robertson was disbarred for this egregious

16

misconduct, which he challenges here on a myriad of grounds. The Court dismissed the first

17

amended complaint from the bench, and now provides a fuller statement detailing the

18

shortcomings in the complaint mainly for plaintiff’s guidance should he choose to amend. Dkt.

19

Nos. 48, 106.

20
21

BACKGROUND
Robertson was in a business partnership, W.A.R. LLP, with William C. Cartinhour, Jr.,

22

who is not a lawyer and who is named as a defendant in this case. Eventually there was litigation

23

between the two in the District of Columbia. Cartinhour claimed that Robertson had

24

misrepresented the status of a securities class action that Robertson was working on as an attorney,

25

and which the partnership was backing as a business opportunity. As Robertson himself lays out

26

in his complaint, a federal district court jury found that Robertson had breached a fiduciary duty to

27

Cartinhour and had committed legal malpractice, and it awarded to Cartinhour $3.5 million in

28

compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages. Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 144. A civil

1

judgment was entered in favor of Cartinhour, and the United States Court of Appeals for the

2

District of Columbia affirmed the judgment. Id. ¶ 91. Attorney disciplinary proceedings before

3

the State Bar of California were initiated and resulted in a recommendation that Robertson be

4

disbarred. Id. ¶¶ 101, 112. The Supreme Court of California filed an order effectively approving

5

the recommendation and disbarment, id. ¶ 115, which was not yet final at the time this lawsuit was

6

filed. Id. ¶ 116.
DISCUSSION

7
8
9

The complaint is a sprawling mass of disjointed allegations and was dismissed as
incomprehensible for that reason. Dkt. No. 113 (motion hearing transcript) at 3:21-23 & 8:11-12.
The complaint tries to allege eleven disparate claims for relief against thirty-eight separate

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

defendants in 834 paragraphs (totaling 209 pages) of allegations that are, at best, hard to follow. It

12

includes what is effectively a complaint within a complaint in the form of an alleged claim against

13

Cartinhour that runs 134 pages long and has its own separate table of contents. Dkt. No. 48 at 34.

14

This claim features an attack on “Cartinhour’s undisclosed serious mental illnesses” and other

15

scurrilous statements by Robertson against the victim who prevailed against him in court. Id. at

16

43-46. The complaint includes a variety of other comments whose relevance is not at all apparent,

17

such as the ones about the California State Bar’s real estate dealings. Id. ¶¶ 780-790. This

18

violates the requirement in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the complaint

19

must contain “a short and plain statement” of plaintiff’s claims for relief, and is a proper basis for

20

dismissal.

21

Because plaintiff will be given 45 days from the date of this order to file an amended

22

complaint should he choose to do so, the Court provides further guidance for plaintiff’s next

23

attempt, should there be one. The Court primarily relies on plaintiff’s prayer for relief as a guide

24

for better understanding what it is plaintiff seeks in this case. Dkt. No. 48 at 205-208.

25

The Court rejects as improper any request to review or vacate prior judgments or orders

26

issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the United States

27

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia. Id. at 205-206. This Court does not sit in review

28

of those courts. The fact that some of the orders or judgments may have been registered in this
2

1

district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963 does not lead to a different result. See F.D.I.C. v. Aaronian,

2

93 F.3d 636, 639 (9th Cir. 1996); Indian Head Nat’l Bank of Nashua v. Brunelle, 689 F.2d 245,

3

249 (1st Cir. 1982). Even assuming jurisdiction were to exist for that, which is itself doubtful,

4

principles of comity and efficient judicial administration weigh definitively against asking a

5

district court to second guess the orders and decisions issued by sister courts. The salient point is

6

that Robertson had a trial before a jury whose verdict was affirmed on appeal. There is no place in

7

our federal system for a disgruntled litigant to seek collateral review before another district court.

8

The rest of plaintiff’s case is an effort to avoid the disbarment consequences of the verdict

9

against him. Specifically, he seeks to escape any “legal effect” from “case No. S237476 in the
Supreme Court of California” and “case No. 09-O-19529 in the State Bar Court of the State Bar of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

California.” Dkt. No. 48 at 206-208. Those cases are the attorney disciplinary proceedings in

12

California, which were pending at the time this case was filed.

13

Younger abstention precludes consideration of Robertson’s attack on his state discipline

14

orders. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Hirsh v. Justice of the Supreme Court of the State

15

of California, 67 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 1995). Under Younger, “[a]bsent ‘extraordinary

16

circumstances,’ abstention in favor of state judicial proceedings is required if the state proceedings

17

(1) are ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate

18

opportunity to litigate federal claims.” Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 712 (citing Middlesex County Ethics

19

Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)).

20

As in Hirsh, each of the prerequisites for Younger abstention is satisfied here. For the two

21

requirements that plaintiff contests, our circuit has expressly recognized that “California’s attorney

22

disciplinary proceedings implicate important state interests,” and that the California Supreme

23

Court’s rules relating to Bar Court decisions provide for an adequate opportunity for a plaintiff to

24

present federal constitutional claims. Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 712-13; see also Baffert v. California

25

Horse Racing Board, 332 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (that plaintiff “disagrees vigorously with

26

the result that he has achieved thus far in California” does not render the forum inadequate for the

27

litigation of constitutional claims for purposes of determining applicability of Younger abstention).

28

Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are rejected as meritless.
3

1

Nor has plaintiff established that any of the exceptions to Younger abstention might apply.

2

Our circuit has determined that “one who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of honesty

3

and integrity in those serving as adjudicators,” with “evidence.” Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 713-14

4

(quotations omitted). And the bad faith exception “means that a prosecution has been brought

5

without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction” and requires “evidence of bad

6

faith, such as bias against plaintiff, or of a harassing motive.” Baffert, 332 F.3d at 621. Based on

7

the record, the Court concludes that plaintiff has not crossed the necessary bar from “only

8

conjecture,” which is insufficient, Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 714, to actual evidence. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 48

9

¶ 704 (plaintiff’s allegation that when the State Bar defendants initiated attorney disciplinary
proceedings against him in 2012 following the passage of a new dues bill in 2011, “on information

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and belief they did so because they were motivated by their own pecuniary interests”), and

12

compare with Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 714 (“The fact that fines imposed in attorney disciplinary

13

proceedings are paid to the treasury of the State Bar does not establish an impermissible financial

14

interest.”).
CONCLUSION

15
16

Defendants’ motions are granted, Dkt. Nos. 57, 58, and plaintiff’s first amended complaint

17

is dismissed. In light of what the Court has seen so far, it has serious doubts that plaintiff will be

18

able to state a plausible claim. Nevertheless, plaintiff may file a second amended complaint by

19

June 14, 2018, that is consistent with this order. All other pending motions are terminated as

20

moot, without prejudice to being renewed at a later time if appropriate.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 30, 2018

23
24
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
4