C. et al v. Rady's Children's Hospital et al

Filing 61

ORDER Denying 46 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds Plaintiffs later guilty plea essentially moots Plaintiffs arguments for reconsideration. His guilty plea is still barred by Heck as the Court would have to cast doubt on Plaintiffs guilty plea to consider the arguments in his complaint. Moreover, the Court is not convinced a reversal of its sanctions ruling is necessary. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 07/30/2019. (mme)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13

Case No.: 17-cv-0846-AJB-JLB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
Rady Children’s Hospital, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 46)

14
15

After the Court granted two motions to dismiss, granted sanctions against Plaintiff,

16

and dismissed Plaintiff’s case, Plaintiff filed for reconsideration of these rulings.

17

(Doc. No. 46.) Plaintiff argues that because a California Court of Appeals Court reversed

18

his conviction, the initial allegations brought in his complaint regarding his RICO claims

19

are vindicated. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also argues the Court’s analysis of his claims under the

20

Heck v. Humphrey bar “deserve reconsideration.” (Id.) For the reasons stated herein, the

21

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 46.)

22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit stems from a criminal proceeding in San Diego Superior Court in

24

which plaintiffs’ father, Azael Chavez, was convicted for felony child abuse. (Doc. No. 14

25

at 6.) Plaintiffs are twin children. (Id.) During the course of their medical treatment at Rady

26

Children’s Hospital, treating physicians suspected child abuse and reported it—as

27

mandated under law. (Id.) Chavez sued defendants twice in Superior Court, once for failing

28

to produce medical records, and once for various causes of action including a breach of
1
17-cv-0846-AJB-JLB

1

fiduciary duties. (Id.) Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the first case after Rady moved for

2

sanctions. (Id.) During the second case, defendants moved to strike all allegations under

3

the anti-SLAPP statute because the treating physicians who reported the suspected child

4

abuse were protected. (Id.) The Court tentatively ruled in favor of defendants, but plaintiffs

5

again withdrew the case before the Court held a hearing. (Id.) The Superior Court ordered

6

sanctions against plaintiffs’ attorney and Chavez. (Id.) Plaintiffs then filed the instant suit

7

in federal court.

8

In the first amended complaint (“FAC”), plaintiffs bring five causes of action:

9

(1) RICO, (2) conspiracy to violate RICO, (3) conspiracy to interfere with civil rights,

10

under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), (4) conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, under 42 U.S.C.

11

§ 1985(3), and (5) declaratory judgment. (Doc. No. 11.) The Court, in granting two motions

12

to dismiss, dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint entirely and granted sanctions.

13

In his reconsideration motion, Plaintiff alleges the Court of Appeal reversed his

14

criminal conviction warranting reconsideration of his arguments. (Doc. No. 46.) The Court

15

of Appeal reversed in June 2018. In several recently-filed declarations from Defendants,

16

however, the Court was informed that in January 2019 Plaintiff pleaded guilty in Court to

17

Penal Code § 273(A)(A). (Doc. No. 59-1 at 31.) Defendants also reasserted their arguments

18

from their motions to dismiss. Notably, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’

19

arguments.

20

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

21

A Court may grant relief from a final order if “newly discovered evidence that, with

22

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

23

Rule 59(b).” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2).

24

III.

DISCUSSION

25

Finding that Plaintiff indeed pleaded guilty to similar crimes he was found guilty of

26

in his now-overturned conviction, the Court finds any reconsideration as to these issues

27

moot. Plaintiff argues that with his conviction overturned, the Heck bar no longer applies.

28

He writes: “[w]ith the reversal of the criminal conviction by the court of appeals, that
2
17-cv-0846-AJB-JLB

1

obstacle should be no bar to plaintiff’s RICO cause of action.” (Doc. No. 46 at 6.) However,

2

with his guilty plea now in place, the Heck bar still remains.

3

Plaintiff also argues the Court of Appeals’ decision vindicated his underlying

4

allegations. (Doc. No. 46 at 8.) He argues “[t]he appellate decision changes dramatically

5

the legal analysis favorable to his cases. Plaintiff’s legal position has always be[e]n that

6

the police, doctors and prosecutors worked hand in hand to manufacture, and did achieve,

7

an ignoble prosecution and illegal conviction. (Id.) While the Court of Appeals did overrule

8

his conviction finding his confession was made during a custodial interrogation without

9

being mirandized first, (Doc. No. 46-2 at 3), his later guilty plea still negates the crux of

10

his underlying allegations. To allow Plaintiff to reconsider his RICO claim based solely on

11

the Court of Appeals ruling would cast dispute on—and imply the invalidity of—his guilty

12

plea.

13

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s guilty plea still bars the Court from visiting his

14

RICO claims as it could undermine his conviction. See Oberg v. Asotin Cnty, 310 F. App’x

15

144, 145–46 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s RICO

16

claims under Heck); Katakis v. Chandler, No. 2:15-02526 WBS KJN, 2016 WL 1056962,

17

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016); Franco v. City and Cnty of San Francisco, No. C 10–

18

04768 WHA, 2012 WL 3010953, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) (“The rationale of Heck

19

applies to RICO and conspiracy claims.”); Bhatia v. Wig, No. C-10-0072 SBA, 2010 U.S.

20

Dist. LEXIS 95782 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2010); Boulware v. Dep’t of Ins., Civ. No. 09-4325-

21

R(E) MLR, 2009 WL 3271060, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009) (“Heck also applies to RICO

22

claims.”); Garcia v. Scribner, Civ. No. 97-0742 CRB, 1998 WL 397895, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

23

July 10, 1998) (finding Heck “applies with equal force to civil RICO claims”).

24

Finally, Plaintiff requests the Courts’ prior award of sanctions under Federal Rule of

25

Civil Procedure 11 be recalled. (Doc. No. 46 at 9.) Other than the arguments used in support

26

of overturning the Court’s order on the dismissal motions, Plaintiff provides little support

27

to favor recalling the Court’s sanctions award. Plaintiff points to misrepresentations

28

allegedly made by the Court. (Doc. No. 46 at 6–7.) However, Plaintiff fails to negate the
3
17-cv-0846-AJB-JLB

1

reasons the Court found sanctions appropriate in the first instance, which included an

2

analysis of both the Ninth Circuit’s two-part test and the Colorado-River doctrine.

3

(See Doc. No. 42 at 6–9.) Under the Court’s analysis, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s

4

theory was frivolous because the complaint was “replete with bold and conclusory

5

allegations lacking supporting evidence or facts.” (Id. at 6.) Even if a few cases hold the

6

Heck bar does not apply to civil RICO claims, (id. at 4 (listing cases)), that does not give

7

Plaintiff a basis to file a complaint unsupported by facts rather than conclusions.

8

Thus, the Court will not reverse its prior ruling regarding sanctions.

9

V.

CONCLUSION

10

The Court finds Plaintiff’s later guilty plea essentially moots Plaintiff’s arguments

11

for reconsideration. His guilty plea is still barred by Heck as the Court would have to cast

12

doubt on Plaintiff’s guilty plea to consider the arguments in his complaint. Moreover, the

13

Court is not convinced a reversal of its sanctions ruling is necessary. Thus, the Court

14

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 46.)

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 30, 2019

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
17-cv-0846-AJB-JLB