Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility v. Clark

Filing 10

ORDER REMANDING this matter to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Court declines to rule on 6 Motion to Intervene filed by Jill Clark, P.A., and Jill Clark, LLC.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on June 15, 2012. (DML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF LAWYERS
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY,

Civil No. 12-1373 (JRT/AJB)

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
JILL CLARK,
Defendant.
Martin A. Cole and Craig Donald Klausing, OFFICE OF LAWYERS
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, 345 Saint Peter Street, Suite
1500, Saint Paul, MN 55102-1218, for plaintiff.
Jill Clark, JILL CLARK, LLC, 2005 Aquila Avenue North, Golden
Valley, MN 55427, defendant pro se.

On February 10, 2012, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional
Responsibility (“OLPR”) filed a petition for disciplinary action against Jill Clark. On
March 2, 2012, Clark filed an answer to the petition. The Minnesota Supreme Court
referred the petition to the Honorable Gerald J. Seibel, District Court Judge for the Eighth
District of the State of Minnesota. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 25, 2012.
On June 8, 2012, Clark filed a notice of removal with this Court. Clark alleges that this
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and D. Minn. L.R. 83.6.
Specifically, Clark alleges that there is federal jurisdiction because the disciplinary action
violates her federal rights, including her rights under the First Amendment. OLPR
requests that this Court remand this action sua sponte to the state court pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Court will remand this matter to the state court because Clark
failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and because this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
First, the notice of removal filed by Clark was untimely. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b), a notice of removal must be filed “within 30 days after the receipt . . . of a
copy of the initial pleading . . . [or] of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or
other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has
become removable.”

Thirty days has expired since OLPR filed the petition for

disciplinary action in state court.
Clark argues that events in the past thirty days have alerted her to the removable
nature of this action. For example, she alleges that, in the past thirty days, she discovered
material that was relevant to violations of her First Amendment rights. However, Clark’s
answer, filed in the state court on March 2, 2012, alleges that the disciplinary action
violated her First Amendment and other federal rights. It is thus evident that Clark was
aware of federal issues allegedly implicated by the state court proceeding within thirty
days after the filing of the petition. Accordingly, Clark’s thirty days to remove the case
has expired. See Percell’s Inc. v. Cent. Tel. Co., 493 F. Supp. 156, 157 (D. Minn. 1980)
(“[T]he time limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) . . . are mandatory and are to be strictly
construed[.]”).
Second, Clark has not established that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and D. Minn. L.R. 83.6. This Court does not have jurisdiction to
administer disciplinary proceedings regarding the state licenses of attorneys admitted to
-2-

the state bar. In re Rhodes, 370 F.2d 411, 413 (8th Cir. 1967).1 Furthermore, the fact that
Clark has asserted federal rights in this proceeding does not grant this Court jurisdiction.
To obtain the right to remove, Clark must demonstrate that there is a state law preventing
her from raising federal claims in state court or a basis for an “equally firm prediction”
that she will be unable to protect her federal rights in state court. See Neal v. Wilson, 112
F.3d 351, 355 (8th Cir. 1997). The Court has reviewed all of the materials submitted by
Clark, and finds that Clark has not shown any likelihood that she will be unable to raise
her federal claims in state court. This Court therefore has no subject matter jurisdiction.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Minnesota Supreme
Court. The Court declines to rule on the Motion to Intervene filed by Jill Clark, P.A., and
Jill Clark, LLC [Docket No. 6].

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: June 15, 2012
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

____s/
____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

1

See also In re Daly, 189 N.W.2d 176, 179 (Minn. 1971) (“[The state court has a]
responsibility to protect the public, the administration of justice, and the profession by imposing
disciplinary sanctions, including removal from practice, upon those attorneys who, after careful
investigation, proper notice, and hearing, are found to have demonstrated that they do not
possess the qualities of character and the professional competence requisite to the practice of
law.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

-3-