Guilford v. State Bar of California
Filing
7
ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; giving Plaintiff 21 days to file a memorandum of points and authorities showing cause why this action should not be dismissed. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
7
DAVID M. GUILFORD,
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
3:17-cv-00038-RCJ-VPC
vs.
ORDER
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.
12
13
This case involves a constitutional challenge to Defendant State Bar of California’s
14
authority to require one of its members, Plaintiff David Guilford, to produce copies of a client
15
file for purposes of Defendant’s investigation of a bar complaint filed against Plaintiff. Now
16
pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 4.) For the
17
reasons given herein, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
18
Plaintiff is an attorney residing in Nevada, and licensed to practice law in Nevada and
19
California. (Mot. 5, ECF No. 4-1 at 3.) On January, 11, 2017, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff,
20
notifying him that a former client had made a bar complaint against him and requesting
21
information and documents for the ensuing investigation. (See Investigation Letter, ECF No. 4-
22
2.) The letter stated that Plaintiff’s client primarily accused him of not completing legal work for
23
which he was paid, and of unlawfully retaining unearned fees and client documents after the
24
representation ended. To further investigate the complaint, Defendant requested certain specified
1 of 3
1
information and “legible copies” of certain documents, including but not limited to a complete
2
copy of the complainant’s client file, all retainer agreements and engagement letters with the
3
complainant, and all billing statements provided to the complainant.
Plaintiff received Defendant’s letter on January 17, 2017, and promptly filed this action
4
5
three days later, on January 20. (Mot. 6, ECF No. 4-1 at 4.) Plaintiff now moves for a
6
preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant “from demanding client files” related to the bar
7
complaint. (Id. at 5–6.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s investigative request amounts to a
8
deprivation of his property by the State of California, in violation of his due process rights under
9
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
However, it appears the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiff requests, or to
10
11
hear this case. Plaintiff has alleged constitutional violations against the California State Bar as
12
sole defendant. The State Bar is entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity. “It is well
13
established in the Ninth Circuit that the State Bar is an arm of the State of California for Eleventh
14
Amendment purposes.” Albert v. State Bar of California, No. SACV141905DOCANX, 2015
15
WL 12683802, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015) (citing multiple cases). “The Eleventh
16
Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an ‘arm of
17
the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” Durning v. Citibank, N.A., 950 F.2d 1419, 1422–
18
23 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added) (where plaintiff alleged constitutional violations under 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied, and Plaintiff is ordered
20
21
to show cause why this case should not be dismissed in its entirety based on Defendant’s
22
Eleventh Amendment immunity.
23
///
24
///
2 of 3
CONCLUSION
1
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file, within twenty-one days (21) of this
4
order, a memorandum of points and authorities showing cause why this action should not be
5
dismissed.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 23rd day of May, 2017.
8
9
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?