11-3 Appellants' Excerpts of the Record, Vol I of II

Plaintiff-Appellant In Pro Se Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant California Coalition

for Families and Children, PBC

Case: 14-56140 10/22/2014 ID: 9287311 DktEntry: 11-3 Page: 1 of 107 (96 of 514)



Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB Document 193 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 60

ER 1


Ricotta v. California

Ashelman v. Pope


ER 2

Case: 14-56140 10/22/2014 ID: 9287311 DktEntry: 11-3 Page: 5 of 107(100 of 514)

,

Colbern C. Stuart III

Dean Browning Webb


ER 3


United States District CourtSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant.

Plaintiff,

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN., a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation, and COLBERN C. STUART, an individual,

San Diego County Bar Association, a California Corporation ** See Attachment for additional Defendants**

V.

Civil Action No. 13CV1944-CAB-BLM

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

CLERK OF COURT JOHN MORRILL, Clerk of Court

, DeputyY. BarajasBy: s/ Y. Barajas

Date: 7/9/14

Due to plaintiffs’ inability–or unwillingness–to file a complaint that complies with Rule 8, the court finds that granting further leave to amend would unduly prejudice defendants. Accordingly, defendants’ pending motions to dismiss are granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.


ER 4


United States District CourtSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(ATTACHMENT)

Civil Action No. 13CV1944-CAB-BLM

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN., a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation, and COLBERN C. STUART, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation; WILLIAM D. GORE, an individual, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal entity; SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, a municipal entity; ROBERT J. TRENTACOSTA, an individual; MICHAEL RODDY, an individual; JUDICIAL COUNCIL, a municipal entity; STEVEN JAHR, an individual; ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, a municipal entity; TANI G. CANTILSAKAUYE, an individual; COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, a municipal entity; LAWRENCE J. SIMI, an individual; BRAD BATSON, an individual; NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCE, a California Corporation; LISA SCHALL, an individual; LORNA ALKSNE, an individual; OFF DUTY OFFICERS, INC., a business entity of unknown form; CHRISTINE GOLDSMITH, an individual; JEANNIE LOWE, an individual; WILLIAM MCADAM, an individual; EDLENE MCKENZIE, an individual; JOEL WOHLFEIL, an individual; MICHAEL GROCH, an individual; EMILY GARSON, an individual; JAN GOLDSMITH, an individual; CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal entity; CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, a corporation; KRISTINE P. NESTHUS, an individual; BRIAN WATKINS, an individual; KEN SMITH, an individual MARILOU MARCQ, an individual; CSB-INVESTIGATIONS, an entity of unknown form; CAROLE BALDWIN, an individual; LAURY BALDWIN, an individual; BALDWIN AND BALDIWN, a California professional corporation; LARRY CORRIGAN, an individual; WILLIAM HARGRAEVES, an individual; HARGRAEVES & TAYLOR, PC, a California Professional Corporation; TERRY CHUCAS, an individual; MERIDITH LEVIN, an individual; ALLEN SLATTERY, INC., a California Corporation, a Corporation; JANIS STOCKS, an individual; STOCKS & COLBURN, a California professional corporation; DR. STEPHEN DOYNE, an individual; DR. STEPHEN DOYNE, INC., a professional corporation; SUSAN GRIFFIN, an individual; DR. LORI LOVE, an individual; LOVE AND ALVAREZ PSYCHOLOGY, INC., a California corporation; ROBERT A. SIMON, PH.D, an individual; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS INSTITUTE, a business entity of unknown form; ROBERT O’BLOCK, an individual; LORI CLARK VIVIANO, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF LORI CLARK VIVIANO, a business entity of unknown form; SHARON BLANCHET, an individual; ASHWORTH, BLANCHET, KRISTENSEN, & KALEMENKARIAN, a California Professional Corporation; MARILYN BIERER, an individual; BIERER AND ASSOCIATES, a California Professional Corporation; JEFFREY FRITZ, an individual; BASIE AND FRITZ, a professional corporation, and DOE Defendants herein enumerated, Defendants.


ER 5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FORFAMILIES AND CHILDREN andCOLBERN C. STUART,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13-cv-1944-CAB (JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHPREJUDICE, DENYINGPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FORPRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, ANDDENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONFOR SANCTIONS

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BARASSOCIATION et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on the omnibus motion to dismiss filed by

defendant San Diego County Bar Association and on the joinders and supplemental

motions of additional defendants. [Doc. Nos. 131, 134-135, 137-152.] Also before the

court is plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and certain defendants’ motion

for sanctions. [Doc. Nos. 109, 160.]

BACKGROUND

This action was initiated in August 2013. [Doc. No. 1.] The original complaint

totaled 175 pages (plus 1156 pages of exhibits) and named about fifty defendants. After

hearing oral argument on several defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court dismissed

- 1 - 13cv1944


ER 6


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the original complaint with leave to amend. The complaint was dismissed as to the two

corporate plaintiffs, Lexevia, PC and California Coalition for Families and Children,

because corporations must appear in court through an attorney. D-Deam Ltd. P’Ship

v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004); CivLR 83.3(k). The

court dismissed plaintiff Colbern C. Stuart’s claims because he failed to comply with

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In affording plaintiffs leave to amend,

the court noted that while Stuart proceeds pro se, he was formerly a licensed attorney

with a complex litigation practice and should be capable of crafting a complaint in

compliance with Rule 8.

Stuart and California Coalition filed their amended complaint on January 9,

2014.1 [Doc. No. 90.] California Coalition is now represented by counsel Dean

Browning Webb. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint totals 251 pages, with 1397 more

pages in exhibits. The allegations generally relate to four occurrences: Stuart’s

dissolution proceedings, his criminal prosecution, events at a San Diego County Bar

Association seminar, and defendants’ demands that Stuart remove references to judges’

home addresses in the original complaint. About sixty defendants are named, some of

whom are referenced only several times throughout the complaint’s 1200-plus

paragraphs. For instance, defendant Steven Jahr, identified as the Administrative

Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, is mentioned by name in only seven

paragraphs. [Id. ¶¶ 12, 698, 700, 702, 738, 915k, 931.] Similarly, the only factual

allegations against defendant Meredith Levin are that she is an attorney licensed to

practice in California and an organizer of the SDCBA seminar. [Id. ¶¶ 43, 110, 152,

915nn.]

Plaintiffs divide their complaint into fifteen counts, an additional eleven RICO

counts, and two counts for prospective relief. Each of the first fifteen counts is further

divided into “claims.” For example, Count 1 is broken down into Claims 1.1 through

1.13. In total, plaintiffs assert about 75 “claims” in their first 15 counts.

1 Lexevia is no longer a party.

- 2 - 13cv1944


ER 7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Some of plaintiffs’ assertions are so implausible as to be offensive. For instance,

plaintiffs accuse well over fifty defendants (including judges, attorneys, doctors, social

workers, and law-enforcement officers) of conspiring to commit racketeering activity

including enticement into slavery, sale into involuntary servitude, transportation of

slaves, and service on vessels in slave trade, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583-1586. [Id. ¶ 1000.]

Further, as with the original complaint, plaintiffs fill the amended complaint with

their unique acronyms,2 defined terms,3 and terms with no discernable meaning.4 Look

for instance at paragraphs 683 and 684:

683. ALKSNE further maintained supervisory responsibility over eachSTUART ASSAULT COORDINATOR, the PREPARATIONAND PLANNING of the SDCBA SEMINAR, and in the conductand operation of the SD-DDICE, DDI-FICE, DDI-IACE, andSTUART-AHCE ENTERPRISES. She is further a principalconductor and participant of the DDICE, the SD-DDICE, DDI-FICE, DDI-IACE, and supervisor of all San Diego affiliates andparticipants thereof.

684. On information and belief, ALKSNE CULPABLY andUNREASONABLY failed to perform her own PROFESSIONALDUTIES and one or more SUPERVISORY DUTY over hersubordinates, setting in motion the subordinate’s acts as elsewhere

2 Plaintiffs’ acronyms include: AHCE (“Ad Hoc Criminal Enterprise”), DDI (“DomesticDispute Industry”), DDIA (“Domestic Dispute Industry Advocates”), DDICE (“Domestic DisputeCriminal Enterprise”), DDI-FICE (“Domestic Dispute Industry Forensic Investigator”), DDI-IACE(“Domestic Dispute Industry Intervention Advocate Criminal Enterprise”), DDIJO (“DomesticDispute Industry Judicial Official”), DDISO (“Domestic Dispute Industry Security Officers”), DDISW(“Domestic Dispute Industry Social Workers”), DDIL (“Domestic Dispute Industry Litigants”),DVILS (“Domestic Violence Intervention Legislative Scheme”), FFR (“Family Federal Rights”),FFRRESA (“Federal Family Rights Reform, Exercise, Support, and Advocacy”), FICRO (“FederalIndictable Civil Rights Offenses”), and SAD (“Scheme and Artifice to Defraud”).

3 For instance, plaintiffs provide their own definitions for the following terms: ACCESS TOJUSTICE, ASSOCIATION, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, CHILL, CLAIM AND DEMAND,COLOR OF LAW DEFENDANTS, COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, COMMERCIAL SPEECH,CRUEL AND/OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, CULPABLY, DOMESTIC RELATIONS CLASS,DOYNE TERRORISM, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, ENGAGEMENT, EQUALPROTECTION CLASSES, ENTERPRISE ALLEGATIONS, EXCESSIVE FORCE, EXPRESSION,FALSE IMPRISONMENT, HARASSMENT AND ABUSE, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE PIT, PLANNING AND DELIVERY, POSITION UNDER THEUNITED STATES, PRIVACY, PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT,PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, STUART ASSAULT, STUARTASSAULT COORDINATOR, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS,and UNREASONABLY.

4 Plaintiffs repeatedly use terms like “black hat,” “false flag,” “kite bombs,” “paperwads,” and“poser advocacy.”

- 3 - 13cv1944


ER 8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

alleged, depriving Plaintiffs of rights as elsewhere alleged, causinginjury in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

[Doc. No. 90 ¶¶ 683, 684] (capitalization in original). To understand these paragraphs,

one must flip back and forth to obtain definitions of terms defined in paragraphs 152

(STUART ASSAULT COORDINATOR), 931 (SD-DDICE), 940 (DDI-FICE), 937

(DDI-IACE), 944 (STUART AHCE), 147 (CULPABLY and UNREASONABLY), and

637 (SUPERVISORY DUTIES).5

Defendants often can’t determine whether claims are asserted against them. One

cause of defendants’ trouble is plaintiffs’ inconsistent definitions. For instance,

plaintiffs first define the “CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS” as defendants Emily

Garson, Jan Goldsmith, and Christine Goldsmith, but later expand that group to also

include Judges Wohlfeil and Schall. [Id. ¶¶ 349, 383.] Thus, Judges Wohlfeil and

Schall cannot be sure whether Claim 3.6, asserted “against all CITY ATTORNEY

DEFENDANTS,” is asserted against them. [Id. ¶ 498.] Similarly, plaintiffs sometime

identify a particular group of defendants in a claim heading, then modify that group in

the ensuing paragraph. For instance, the defendants identified in the header for

plaintiffs’ “Racketeering Claim for Relief 3.2” are “CITY ATTORNEY

DEFENDANTS, GROCH, GORE,” but the ensuing paragraph additionally identifies

the SDCBA. [Id. ¶ 1049.]

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

After the amended complaint was filed, the court held a case management

conference and established a briefing schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss.

[Doc. No. 107.] In accordance with that schedule, defendant San Diego County Bar

Association filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 131.] Two weeks later,

additional defendants filed joinders and supplemental motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs

responded in opposition to the motions, and defendants replied.

5 See U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 377 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Theacronyms alone force readers to look elsewhere . . . . To understand the paragraph one would haveto read two exhibits and seventy-seven paragraphs scattered throughout the third amendedcomplaint!”)

- 4 - 13cv1944


ER 9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In their motions to dismiss, defendants argue many grounds for dismissal, some

applicable to all defendants, some tailored to subsets or individual defendants. A

recurring contention–one which the court finds meritorious–is that the amended

complaint should be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

Rule 8 requires a pleader to put forth “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As this court

noted in its previous order dismissing the original complaint, the Ninth Circuit has

affirmed dismissal on Rule 8 grounds where the complaint is “argumentative, prolix,

replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant,” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996), “verbose, confusing and conclusory,” Nevijel v. North Coast

Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981), or where it is “impossible to designate

the cause or causes of action attempted to be alleged in the complaint,” Schmidt v.

Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980). Further, the Ninth Circuit has

“affirmed dismissal with prejudice for failure to obey a court order to file a short and

plain statement of the claim as required by Rule 8, even where the heightened standard

of pleading under Rule 9 applied.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (citing Schmidt, 614 F.2d

at 1223-24); see also Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 673.

Here, in dismissing the original complaint, the court noted that while Stuart

proceeds pro se, he was formerly a licensed member of the California bar with a

complex litigation practice. [Doc. No. 88 at 9.] Thus, the court informed Stuart of its

expectation that his amended complaint would comply with Rule 8. [Id.] Instead,

plaintiffs’ amended complaint–which was signed by Stuart and by Dean Browning

Webb as attorney for California Coalition–is even longer than the original and remains

unmanageable, argumentative, confusing, and frequently incomprehensible. [Doc. No.

90.]

Plaintiffs’ repeated failure to comply with Rule 8(a) prejudices defendants, who

face “the onerous task of combing through [plaintiffs’ lengthy complaint] just to prepare

- 5 - 13cv1944


ER 10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

an answer that admits or denies such allegations and to determine what claims and

allegations must be defended or otherwise litigated.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen.

Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). And plaintiffs’

noncompliance harms litigants in other matters pending before the court. “Rule 8(a)

requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so that judges and adverse

parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud. Federal judges have better

things to do, and the substantial subsidy of litigation (court costs do not begin to cover

the expense of the judiciary) should be targeted on those litigants who take the

preliminary steps to assemble a comprehensible claim.” U.S. ex rel. Garst v.

Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003).6

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ original complaint was dismissed in part for failure to comply with

Rule 8(a)’s requirement of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Though the court afforded plaintiffs an opportunity to

amend their complaint to comply with Rule 8, plaintiffs filed an equally unmanageable

amended complaint. Due to plaintiffs’ inability–or unwillingness–to file a complaint

that complies with Rule 8, the court finds that granting further leave to amend would

unduly prejudice defendants. Accordingly, defendants’ pending motions to dismiss are

granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. In light of this dismissal, the court

denies plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 109.]

Finally, the court has reviewed the motion for sanctions filed by the Superior

Court of California, County of San Diego and the Administrative Office of the Courts.

[Doc. No. 160.] Although the court finds that plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to

comply with Rule 8, and the amended submission is even more unmanageable than the

original (despite the court’s admonishment that plaintiffs rid the pleading of its

voluminous surplusage and argumentative text), the court does not conclude that

6 “District judges are busy, and therefore have a right to dismiss a complaint that is so longthat it imposes an undue burden on the judge, to the prejudice of other litigants seeking the judge’sattention.” Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 844 (7th Cir. 2013).

- 6 - 13cv1944


ER 11


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

plaintiffs’ filing was made solely for the purpose of harassing the defendants or in

contempt of the court’s order to file a Rule 8 compliant pleading. No monetary sanction

will be awarded, and the motion for sanctions is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 8, 2014

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGOUnited States District Judge

- 7 - 13cv1944


ER 12


MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Case Name: California Coalition for Families andChildren, et al. v. San Diego County BarAssociation, et al.

Case No: 13cv1944-CAB (JLB)

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo Ct. Deputy Lori Hernandez Rptr. Tape:

The court vacates the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction [Doc.No. 109] and on the motion for sanctions of defendant Superior Court of California,County of San Diego [Doc. No. 160], previously set for June 27, 2014. The court willissue a new scheduling order as to these motions, if necessary, following dispositionof the pending motions to dismiss.

Date: June 9, 2014Initials: dwg


ER 13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



CALIFORNIA COALITION FORFAMILIES AND CHILDREN andCOLBERN C. STUART,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO TAKE EARLYDISCOVERY

[Doc. No. 164]vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs move for leave to take the deposition of Stephen D. Lucas, counsel for

defendant San Diego County Bar Association. [Doc. No. 164.] Plaintiffs argue that

good cause supports the requested relief because, they contend, Mr. Lucas made

improper representations in the memorandum in support of defendants’ omnibus motion

to dismiss and in his declaration. [Id. at 3.]

No cause exists for the requested relief. If any party has submitted material

inappropriate at this stage for consideration, the court will not consider it. Plaintiffs’

motion [Doc. No. 164] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2014


- 1 - 13cv1944

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 165 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 1

ER 14


7/10/2014 CM/ECF - casd

https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126195459686204-L_1_0-1 1/36

CLOSED,SEALDC

U.S. District CourtSouthern District of California (San Diego)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB

California Coalition for Families and Children. et al v. San DiegoCounty Bar Association et alAssigned to: Judge Cathy Ann BencivengoReferred to: Magistrate Judge Jill L. BurkhardtDemand: $9,999,000Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

Date Filed: 08/20/2013Date Terminated: 07/09/2014Jury Demand: PlaintiffNature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/CorruptOrganizationJurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

California Coalition for Families andChildren. a Delaware Corporation

represented by Eric W. Ching 402 W. Broadway, Ste 2500 San Diego, CA 92101 510-449-1091 Fax: 619-615-0904 Email: [email protected] TERMINATED: 05/09/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dean Browning Webb The Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb 515 East 39th Street Vancouver, WA 98663 (503)629-2176 Fax: (503)629-9527 Email: [email protected] PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Lexevia, PC a California Professional Corporation TERMINATED: 01/09/2014

Plaintiff

Colbern C. Stuart 4891 Pacific Highway Suite 102 San Diego, CA 92110

represented by Colbern C Stuart , III 4891 Pacific Highway Suite 102 San Diego, CA 92110


ER 15


7/10/2014 CM/ECF - casd


02/26/2014 108 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo: CaseManagement Conference held on 2/26/2014. Omnibus briefing schedule is set by thecourt. Further written order will follow. Pro se plaintiff requested the court to address39 Motion for Sanctions against defendants filed by plaintiff Colbern Stuart. The motionis denied NUNC PRO TUNC to 12/19/2013. A motion hearing was held onDecember 19, 2013 and at that hearing the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.As such, all pending motions were deemed withdrawn by the court (see docket entry 86).(Court Reporter/ECR Mauralee Ramirez). (Plaintiff Attorney Dean Webb andColbern Stuart (pro se)). (Defendant Attorney Stephen Lucas, Daniel Agle, GregoryGoonan, Charles Grebing, Matthew Green, Rachael Mills, Lynn Feldner, KatherineWeadock, Timothy Pestotnik, Ricky Sanchez, Thomas Schafbuch (telephonicappearance), Kyle Van Dyke, Richard Wolfe, Mike Nardi, Steve Doyne and CharlesTaylor). (no document attached) (lmh) (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/28/2014 109 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Domestic Violence RestrainingOrders: First Amend. by California Coalition for Families and Children.. (Attachments:# 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Part 1 (Inc. Decl.), #4 Exhibit Part 2, # 5 Exhibit Part 3, # 6 Exhibit Part 4, # 7 Exhibit Part 5, # 8 ExhibitPart 6, # 9 Exhibit Part 7, # 10 Exhibit Part 8, # 11 Exhibit Part 9, # 12 Exhibit Part 10,# 13 Exhibit Part 11, # 14 Exhibit Part 12, # 15 Exhibit Part 13, # 16 Exhibit Part 14, #17 Exhibit Part 15, # 18 Exhibit Part 16, # 19 Exhibit Part 17, # 20 Exhibit Part 18, #21 Exhibit Part 19, # 22 Exhibit Part 20, # 23 Exhibit Part 21, # 24 Exhibit Part 22, #25 Exhibit Part 23, # 26 Exhibit Part 24)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 02/28/2014)

03/04/2014 110 MINUTE ORDER: On February 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminaryinjunction. [Doc. No. 109 .] In light of the current scheduling order regarding theDefendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs first amended complaint, [Doc. No. 105 ] theCourt sets the following briefing schedule for plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction[Doc. No. 109 ]: Responsive briefs will be filed no later than June 13, 2014; Plaintiffsmay file a reply brief no later than June 20, 2014. The hearing on Plaintiffs motion forpreliminary injunction [Doc. No. 109 ], currently set for April 22, 2014, is herebycontinued to June 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4C.(yeb) (Entered: 03/04/2014)

03/05/2014 111 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Stuart, Colbern) (sjt). (Entered: 03/05/2014)

03/05/2014 112 (Filed as Sealed Document 114 on 3/6/2014) SEALED LODGED ProposedDocument re: 111 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filed byClerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Stuart, Colbern)(sjt). (MainDocument 112 replaced on 3/6/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of lodgement on3/6/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/05/2014)

03/06/2014 113 ORDER granting 111 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Mr. Ching shall file hisreply, if any, on or before March 12, 2014. Upon completion of the briefing, the Courtwill take the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and nopersonal appearances will be required. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara LynnMajor on 3/6/2014. (sjt) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/11/2014 115 Notice of Document Discrepancies by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo Rejecting


ER 16

g y Pro se plaintiff requested the court to addressp q

39 Motion for Sanctions against defendants filed by plaintiff Colbern Stuart. The motiong y pis denied NUNC PRO TUNC to 12/19/2013. A motion hearing was held ongDecember 19, 2013 and at that hearing the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.g p yAs such, all pending motions were deemed withdrawn by the court (see docket entry 86p g).(Court Reporter/ECR Mauralee Ramirez). (


1


FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES) CASE NO.13CV1944-CAB(BLM) AND CHILDREN, ) ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFFS, ) ) FEBRUARY 26, 2014 VS. ) ) SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,) MOTION HEARING ET AL., ) ) DEFENDANTS. )

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

OFFICIAL REPORTER: MAURALEE A. RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR 333 BROADWAY, SUITE 420 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 [email protected] 619-994-2526

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 17


2

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: COLBERN C. STUART, III COLBERN C. STUART, IN PRO SE III 4891 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SUITE 102 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110

FOR THE PLAINTIFF DEAN BROWNING WEBBCALIFORNIA COALITION THE LAW OFFICES OF DEAN BROWNING WEBBFOR FAMILIES AND 515 EAST 39TH STREETCHILDREN VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON 98663

FOR THE DEFENDANT MATTHEW L. GREEN SUPERIOR COURT BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP OF SAN DIEGO 655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR COUNTY, AND NAMED SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 JUDICIAL OFFICERS FOR THE DEFENDANT RICHARD F. WOLFE COMMISSION ON OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUDICIAL 110 WEST "A" STREET, SUITE 1100 PERFORMANCE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 LAWRENCE J. SIMI, BRAD BATSON

FOR THE DEFENDANT STEPHEN D. LUCASSAN DIEGO COUNTY LUCAS & HAVERKAMPBAR ASSOCIATION 4350 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, SUITE 260 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121

FOR THE DEFENDANT RICKY R. SANCHEZSAN DIEGO COUNTY COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPT., OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSELWILLIAM D, GORE 1600 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, ROOM 355 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101SAN DIEGO

FOR THE DEFENDANT CHARLES R. GREBINGNATIONAL FAMILY WINGERT GREBING BRUBAKER & JUSKIE LLPJUSTICE CENTER 600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1200ALLIANCE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

FOR THE DEFENDANT TIMOTHY R. PESTOTNIKBALDWIN & BALDWIN PESTOTNIK & GOLD LLPCAROLE BALDWIN 501 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1025LAURY BALDWIN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 18


3

APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):

FOR THE DEFENDANT DANIEL S. AGLEMARILYN BIERER KLIENEDINST PCBIERER & ASSOCIATES 501 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

FOR THE DEFENDANT GREGORY P. GOONANAMERICAN COLLEGE OF THE AFFINITY LAW GROUPFORENSIC EXAMINERS 5755 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 301INSTITUTE, ROBERT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121L. O'BLOCK - AND - THOMAS J. SCHAFBUCH (TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE) CENTER FOR NATIONAL THREAT ASSESSMENT 2750 EAST SUNSHINE STREET SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 65807

FOR THE DEFENDANT RACHAEL H. MILLSLOVE & ALVAREZ OFFICES OF JAMES R. ROGERSPSYCHOLOGY, INC. 125 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE 101DR. LORI LOVE, SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075LARRY CORRIGAN

FOR THE DEFENDANT CHARLES TAYLORCITY OF SAN DIEGO OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY 1200 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1100 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

FOR THE DEFENDANT KATHERINE WEADOCKDR. ROBERT A. SIMON LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 550 WEST C STREET, SUITE 800 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

FOR THE DEFENDANT MICHAEL NARDICHUBB GROUP OF SELTZER CAPLAN MCMAHON VITEKINSURANCE COMPANIES 750 "B" STREET, SUITE 1200 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

FOR THE DEFENDANT J. LYNN FELDNERTERENCE CHUCAS MURCHISON & CUMMING LLPSUSAN GRIFFIN 750 "B" STREET, SUITE 2550 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 19


4

APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):

FOR THE DEFENDANT: KYLE VAN DYKE JEFFREY FRITZ, HURST & HURST BASIE & FRITZ 701 "B" STREET, SUITE 1400 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

ALSO PRESENT: ADAM GRAHAM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 20


5

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014; 2:00 P.M.

THE CLERK: CALLING AT THIS TIME MATTER NO. 1 ON

CALENDAR, 13CV1944-CAB, CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND

CHILDREN, ET AL., VERSUS SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, ET

AL.

COULD I PLEASE HAVE COUNSEL STATE THEIR APPEARANCES,

BEGINNING WITH THE PLAINTIFFS.

MR. STUART: MY NAME IS COLBERN STUART.

MR. WEBB: MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, DEAN WEBB FOR

CCFC.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THE CLERK: DEFENSE COUNSEL, PLEASE.

MS. WEADOCK: KATHERINE WEADOCK ON BEHALF OF

DR. SIMON.

MR. ZOPATTI: CHRISTOPHER ZOPATTI ON BEHALF OF DR.

STEPHEN DOYNE AND DR. STEPHEN DOYNE, INCORPORATED.

MR. LUCAS: STEVE LUCAS ON BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO

COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION.

MS. FELDNER: LYNN FELDNER ON BEHALF OF TERENCE CHUCAS

AND SUSAN GRIFFIN.

MR. NARDI: MICHAEL NARDI ON BEHALF OF THE CHUBB GROUP

OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.

MR. GOONAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. GREGORY

GOONAN ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS

INSTITUTE AND ROBERT L. O'BLOCK.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 21


6

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. GREEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. MATTHEW GREEN

ON BEHALF OF THE 13 JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS APPEARING IN THE

ACTION.

MR. VAN DYKE: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. KYLE VAN

DYKE ON BEHALF OF JEFFERY FRITZ AND FRITZ & BASIE.

MR. WOLFE: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. RICHARD WOLFE

FOR DEFENDANTS SIMI AND BATSON.

MR. TAYLOR: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. CHARLES

TAYLOR ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.

MR. AGLE: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. DANIEL AGLE ON

BEHALF MARILYN BIERER AND BIERER & ASSOCIATES.

MR. GREBING: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. CHARLES

GREBING ON BEHALF OF MS. BLANCHET, MS. VIVIANO, AND THE

NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCE.

THE CLERK: MR. SCHAFBUCH, WOULD YOU MIND, PLEASE,

STATING YOUR APPEARANCE.

MR. SCHAFBUCH: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. MY

NAME IS THOMAS SCHAFBUCH, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSICS EXAMINERS AND ROBERT L. O'BLOCK.


MS. MILLS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. RACHAEL MILLS

ON BEHALF OF LOVE & ALVAREZ, INC., LORI LOVE, AND LARRY

CORRIGAN.

MR. PESTOTNIK: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. TIMOTHY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 22


7

PESTOTNIK ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAM HARGRAEVES,

HARGRAEVES & TAYLOR, MERIDITH LEVIN, LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN

SLATTERY, DEFENDANT STOCKS, STOCKS & COLBURN, CAROL BALDWIN,

LAURY BALDWIN, AND BALDWIN & BALDWIN.


IS THAT EVERYBODY?

THE CLERK: I BELIEVE THAT IS, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SANCHEZ: RICKY SANCHEZ FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNTY

COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THIS WAS SCHEDULED TODAY AS ESSENTIALLY A CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE. PREVIOUSLY THE PLAINTIFFS HAD FILED A COMPLAINT,

AND THE HISTORY OF THAT WAS -- WELL, THAT WAS HEARD ON DECEMBER

19TH. THE COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

A NUMBER OF REASONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS AT THE TIME, ONE OF THE

PLAINTIFFS, CALIFORNIA COALITION, WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY

COUNSEL AS A CORPORATION AND NEEDED TO BE REPRESENTED BY

COUNSEL.

I ASKED MR. WEBB SPECIFICALLY TO BE IN ATTENDANCE

TODAY AS HE HAD REPRESENTED THAT HE IS COUNSEL FOR THE

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, AND I WANTED TO

MAKE SURE THAT, IN FACT, HE WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE COMPLAINT,

WAS ON IT, AND IS PREPARED TO GO FORWARD AS COUNSEL FOR THAT

PLAINTIFF; IS THAT CORRECT, MR. WEBB?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 23


8

MR. WEBB: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AND YOU HAVE READ THE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT, AND THAT IS YOUR SIGNATURE AND YOU ARE ATTESTING TO

IT?

MR. WEBB: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE FIRST

AMENDED.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY, THE FIRST AMENDED.

MR. WEBB: YES, I HAVE.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND SO THE PLAINTIFF IS NOW

PROPERLY REPRESENTED. MR. COLBERN STUART IS REPRESENTING

HIMSELF STILL AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND I ASKED HIM -- NOW WHEN I

ORIGINALLY ASKED HIM TO REDO THE COMPLAINT, IT WAS WHEN HE WAS

ONLY GOING TO BE REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THE MATTER, AND I TOLD

HIM AND DIRECTED HIM TO RESTRICT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE

COMPLAINT TO THOSE THINGS FOR WHICH HE COULD REPRESENT HIMSELF,

ONLY HIS PERSONAL ALLEGATIONS.

THE COMPLAINT AGAIN COVERS THE ALLEGATIONS OF BOTH THE

CALIFORNIA COALITION AND MR. STUART INDIVIDUALLY, BUT NOW THAT

THERE'S COUNSEL, THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS APPROPRIATE. THE

COURT IS STILL A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE BLENDING OF THE

CLAIMS OF THE TWO PARTIES WHERE IT ISN'T TERRIBLY CLEAR WHO IS

MAKING THE CLAIM. THERE ARE PLACES WHERE IT IS ALLEGED TO BE

MR. STUART'S CLAIM AND, YET, THE CLAIM WAS COMPLETE WITH "AND,

THEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFFS" PLURAL "ARE DAMAGED," AND SO THERE

IS SOME LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHO IS MAKING WHICH CLAIMS,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 24


9

AND THERE IS STILL SOME LEVEL OF BLENDING OF CAUSES OF ACTION

WITHIN CLAIMS, WHICH IS TROUBLING TO THE COURT.

BUT THAT SAID, MY INTENT TODAY IS TO GET A SCHEDULE

AND A PLAN FROM DEFENDANTS AS TO HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED. AND

I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE WANTS TO TAKE THE LEAD HERE IN TERMS OF

LETTING ME KNOW, BUT TO THE EXTENT ANYONE DOES NOT INTEND TO

PROCEED WITH SIMPLY AN ANSWER AND INTENDS TO FILE A MOTION TO

DISMISS, I DON'T WANT TO GET 15 OR 16 OR 20 SEPARATE MOTIONS TO

DISMISS FROM COUNSEL REPRESENTING VARIOUS SUBGROUPS OF

DEFENDANTS. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO GET ONE JOINT MOTION TO

DISMISS THAT MAY COVER ISSUES THAT YOU JOINTLY HAVE THAT ARE

THE SAME AS TO ALL OF YOU AND THEN ALLOW FOR SUPPLEMENTAL.

PEOPLE CAN EITHER JOIN THAT MOTION, YOU CAN ALL FILE IT

TOGETHER, OR YOU CAN FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS THAT ADDRESS

YOUR CLIENTS INDIVIDUALLY.

SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO, ON BEHALF

OF THE DEFENDANTS, LET ME KNOW HOW YOU PLAN TO PROCEED WITH A

RESPONSIVE PLEADING?

SURE.

MR. LUCAS: I'LL VOLUNTEER, YOUR HONOR, SINCE I'M THE

FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT. STEVE LUCAS ON BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO

COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION.

THE COURT: GOOD, YES.

MR. LUCAS: IF I COULD BORROW A PHRASE FROM THE COURT

AT THE EARLIER HEARING. I SPENT AN IN ORDINANT AMOUNT OF TIME

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 25


10

REVIEWING THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND ALSO SPENT AN IN ORDINANT

AMOUNT OF TIME REVIEWING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHICH HAS

IN IT ABOUT 75 PAGES OF ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS. AND I FIND THE

SAME PROBLEM WITH THE SECOND COMPLAINT THAT I FOUND WITH THE

FIRST, AND INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO

PREPARE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 8, AND

APPROPRIATELY AND COHERENTLY IDENTIFIES THE CAUSES OF ACTION,

THE SPECIFIC DEFENDANTS IT ALLEGES LIABLE FOR DAMAGES WITHOUT

UNNECESSARY VERBIAGE, ARGUMENT, RHETORIC, WE'RE STILL IN THE

SAME PLACE WE WERE WITH THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. I DO INTEND TO

FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO START.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE ISSUES THAT THE

COURT RAISED LAST TIME WERE SPECIFIC TO THE COMPLAINT NOT BEING

IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 8, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE

MISPLACED TO REASSERT THAT GROUNDS TO DISMISS. I ASKED THE

PLAINTIFF TO SIMPLIFY, TO CONCISELY STATE IN A STRAIGHTFORWARD

FASHION, HIS CLAIMS, AND AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, THE COMPLAINT

HAS BALLOONED TO NOW 1200 PARAGRAPHS AND 250-PLUS PAGES, AND I

DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY MORE CLARITY REALLY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION ISSUES HAVE

BEEN RESOLVED IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S READING. HOWEVER, IT'S

NOT FOR ME TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK, UNFORTUNATELY, IN THAT REGARD.

I DID A CURSORY READING -- WELL, THAT'S NOT REALLY FAIR. I

SPENT A DAY AND A HALF TRYING TO READ THIS COMPLAINT, AND I AM

NOT SATISFIED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 26


11

WHAT THE COURT DIRECTED THE PLAINTIFF TO DO.

AND TO BE QUITE FRANK, I'VE HAD A MOMENTS WHERE I WAS

THINKING ABOUT JUST SUA SPONTE DISMISSING IT. HOWEVER, MY

REVIEW OF NINTH CIRCUIT CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT SUGGESTS THAT I

MUST AT LEAST FIND OUT FROM THE DEFENDANTS IF THEY CAN

UNDERSTAND THE COMPLAINT AND ANSWER IT, AND RESPOND TO YOUR

MOTION, NOT MY OWN MOTION. SO I'M NOT GOING TO HIDE THE FACT I

THINK THIS DID NOT COMPLY WITH MY ORDER, I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY

MORE CLEAR, THERE'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SURPLUSAGE IN HERE

THAT JUST MAKES IT CONFUSING. ALL OF THE ACRONYMS ARE

FRUSTRATING AND -- WELL, I MEAN, I'M JUST GOING TO GET SUCKED

INTO THE VORTEX OF THIS THING AGAIN.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE MOTION THAT ADDRESSES THE

ISSUES THE COURT PREVIOUSLY RAISED REGARDING RULE 8, REGARDING

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND REGARDING THE IMMUNITY ISSUES

ON THE BROAD PERSPECTIVE THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL, MOST OF THE

DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE IMMUNITY, AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY 1983

CLAIMS AGAINST ENTITIES THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A 1983 CLAIM

AGAINST.

SO IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THAT AND THEN ALLOW

OTHERS TO JOIN THAT MOTION, RATHER THAN ME GETTING THAT MOTION

INDIVIDUALLY FROM EACH OF YOU, WHICH IS JUST WAY MORE WORK FOR

ALL OF YOU AND ME THAN I WANT TO DEAL WITH.

MR. LUCAS: I AM WILLING TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. ONE

CONCERN THAT I DO HAVE IS ALL THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, THE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 27


12

JUDGES HAVE CERTAIN IMMUNITIES THAT APPLY THAT DON'T APPLY TO

MY CLIENT.

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE.

MR. SCHAFBUCH: SAME WITH MY CLIENT. WE DON'T HAVE

THOSE IMMUNITIES.

THE COURT: MY THOUGHT HERE WAS TO HAVE AN OMNIBUS

MOTION FILED BY MARCH 18TH AND THEN ALLOW FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

MOTIONS AS TO ANY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY

A MORE OMNIBUS MOTION ON BROADER GROUNDS THAT WOULD BE LIMITED

TO, SAY, 10 PAGES OF A MOTION DISMISS IF YOUR CLIENTS HAVE

IMMUNITY ISSUES OR OTHER ISSUES THAT AREN'T COVERED IN THE

BROADER MOTION. THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE UNTIL APRIL 18TH TO

FILE AN OPPOSITION, AND THEN REPLIES WOULD BE DUE BY APRIL

25TH. THE COURT WILL TAKE THIS MOTION ON THE PAPERS UNLESS I

REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT.

SO DOES ANYONE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT OR WANT TO

ADDRESS PROCEEDING IN THAT WAY? YES.

MR. NARDI: I MAY BE AT SOMEWHAT UNIQUE POSITION, YOUR

HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU REPRESENT CHUBB.

MR. NARDI: THE NAME OF THE PARTY IS CHUBB GROUP OF

INSURANCE COMPANIES. CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES IS NOT

A LEGAL ENTITY OF ANY SORT. IT'S A TRADE NAME THAT IS USED BY

A GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPARENTLY ONE OF WHICH INSURES

THE BAR ASSOCIATION. SO I'M NOT, BY ATTENDING HERE TODAY,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 28


13

INTENDING TO MAKE ANY KIND OF A GENERAL APPEARANCE OR WAIVE ANY

RIGHTS OR WAIVE THE RIGHT TO QUASH SERVICE.

THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OR ATTEMPTED SERVICE TO

CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES. IT WOULDN'T BE EFFECTIVE

ANYWAY. SO WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE POINT YET WHERE WE

HAVE A VIABLE ENTITY THAT HAS BEEN NAMED IN THE PLEADING OR

ATTEMPTED TO BE SERVED WITH PROCESS.

SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE PREMATURE FOR US TO START

JOINING THE OTHER MOTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY INTENT

TO TRY TO SERVE THE CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES OR THE

ARROYO RIO (PHONETIC) INSURANCE COMPANY, BUT I JUST WANT TO

MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE GOT NOTICE OF THE

HEARING.

AND, FRANKLY, I TOO HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO INTERPRET

THE COMPLAINT, AND IT'S DIFFICULT. I DON'T THINK IT STATES A

CAUSE OF ACTION. IN ANY EVENT, I DON'T THINK THE PLAINTIFF HAS

ANY STANDING TO SUE THE BAR ASSOCIATION'S INSURER AT THIS

POINT. SO CLEARLY APART FROM THE PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS, IF WE

EVER GET TO THE SUBSTANTIVE POINT, WE MAY BE MAKING A MOTION OF

OUR OWN. WE MAY JOIN SOME OF THE OTHERS, BUT MAY MAKE SOME OF

OUR OWN.

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. AND IF ANYONE ELSE WHO IS

HERE WHOSE PARTIES HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY SERVED YET, BUT CAME

BECAUSE YOU WERE AWARE OF THE HEARING, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE UNDER

NO OBLIGATION TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL YOU'RE SERVED. IF YOU'RE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 29


14

SERVED IN THE INTERIM AND THEN WANT TO JOIN THE MOTION THAT'S

FILED ON THE 18TH, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT.

MR. NARDI: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. STUART: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. STUART: WE HAVE SENT WAIVERS OF SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT EARLIER TO ALL THESE

ENTITIES, INCLUDING CHUBB. I'M NOT AWARE THAT CHUBB HAS NOT

RECEIVED THAT. WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY WAIVERS BACK. UNDER RULE

4, I BELIEVE, ACTUALLY THAT DEFENDANTS UPON BECOMING AWARE OF

THE EXISTENCE OF A LAWSUIT, THEY HAVE AN INTEREST TO DO THAT

OBLIGATION, AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION TO ASSIST IN EFFECTING

SERVICE.

AND I WOULD SIMPLY REQUEST THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF

CHUBB IDENTIFY WHO THE APPROPRIATE DEFENDANT IS HERE. THAT

OBVIOUSLY IS THE ENTITY WHO INSURED THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR

ASSOCIATION. THEY KNOW WHO THAT IS. THEY CAN ACCEPT SERVICE

TODAY. I WOULD REQUEST THAT COURT OFFER THAT OPPORTUNITY TO

CHUBB.

TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHER ENTITIES WHO HAVE BEEN

OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO WAIVE SERVICE BY E-MAIL DATED, I

THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY 9, THEY'RE PRESENT IN COURT TODAY. THEY

CAN APPEAR. THEY CAN MAKE A GENERAL APPEARANCE AND GET THIS

CASE STARTED RATHER THAN DEALING WITH THESE PRELIMINARY GOOSE

CHASES HAVING TO DO WITH SERVICE.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 30


15

THE COURT: WELL, I ASKED YOU TO FILE PROOFS OF

SERVICES TO EVERYONE YOU SERVED, AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE

GOTTEN PROOFS FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF THE DEFENDANTS. SO IF YOU

PROPERLY SERVED THEM UNDER THE RULES AND THEY HAVEN'T ANSWERED,

THEN YOU NEED TO SHOW US YOUR PROOFS OF SERVICE. BUT IF ANYONE

HERE WANTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PLAINTIFFS BY ACCEPTING SERVICE

TODAY BECAUSE YOU'RE HERE AND YOU HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT

SERVICE ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENT, WE CAN FACILITATE MOVING THIS

FORWARD.

BUT THE COURT IS NOT CHANGING THE SCHEDULE IN TERMS OF

THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS. I WOULD STILL LIKE TO PROCEED ON THE

SCHEDULE WE HAVE, AND ANYONE WHO IS SERVED IN THE INTERIM OR

ACCEPTS SERVICE IN THE INTERIM CAN JUST JOIN INTO THIS.

OTHERWISE, THIS GETS STRETCHED OUT INDEFINITELY.

MR. STUART: I AGREE, YOUR HONOR, AND THE PARTIES ARE

HERE. THIS COULD BE RESOLVED TODAY.

THE COURT: WELL, IT ISN'T CONVENIENT FOR YOU, BUT

IT'S YOUR LAWSUIT AND YOU NEED TO SERVE THEM, AND IF THEY DON'T

WANT TO ACCEPT SERVICE, A WAIVER, THEN YOU HAVE YOUR REMEDIES,

AND YOU CAN PROCEED.

MR. STUART: WE'LL TAKE NOTICE THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE

ACTUAL NOTICE, AND THEY HAVE REFUSED.

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT WOULD APPLY TO

BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO HERE HASN'T BEEN SERVED, OTHER THAN

THE INSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE WHO SAID YOU NAMED THE WRONG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 31


16

COMPANY.

OKAY. MR. PESTOTNIK.

MR. PESTOTNIK: JUST TO CLARIFY, DOES THE COURT WANT

ALL MOTIONS OR JUST THE OMNIBUS MOTION ON THE 18TH, OR DO YOU

WANT THE JOINDER MOTIONS ALSO FILED SEPARATELY FOR THAT ISSUE

ON THE SAME DAY?

THE COURT: THE OMNIBUS MOTION BY THE 18TH, AND THEN

IF YOU WANT TO JOIN THAT, YOU NEED TO FILE YOUR NOTICE OF

JOINDER BY APRIL 1ST, AND IF YOU WANT TO SUPPLEMENT IT, THEN

YOUR NOTICE OF JOINDER CAN ALSO INCLUDE ANY ISSUES THAT YOU

WANT TO SUPPLEMENT WITH REGARD TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS,

AND THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR APRIL 1ST MOTION AS WELL.

MR. PESTOTNIK: PERFECT.

MR. LUCAS: STEVE LUCAS ON BEHALF OF THE BAR

ASSOCIATION. I THINK THE COURT'S APPROACH TO THIS IS A GOOD

ONE. I'M WILLING TO TAKE THE LABORING OAR, AS I INDICATED, BUT

I DO DETECT THERE ARE GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COOKS

IN THE KITCHEN, SO TO SPEAK, AND I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A

LOT OF COORDINATION REQUIRED. THAT BEING THE CASE, I THINK THE

18TH IS A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE. IF WE COULD HAVE AN EXTRA

MAYBE COUPLE WEEKS BEYOND THE 18TH, I WOULD VERY MUCH

APPRECIATE THAT.

THE COURT: I DON'T WANT TO PUSH THIS OUT TOO FAR, BUT

TO THE EXTENT IT FACILITATES BY HAVING YOU JOINTLY WORK

TOGETHER, MEET AND AGREE ON AS MUCH AS CAN BE CONTAINED IN THE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 32


17

ONE OMNIBUS MOTION SO THAT THE SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS ARE VERY

NARROWLY FOCUSED TO ASSIST THE PLAINTIFFS IN HAVING TO OPPOSE

SO THAT THEY'RE NOT REPEATEDLY HAVING TO ADDRESS THE SAME

ISSUES, A LITTLE EXTRA TIME MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. SO LET ME

ADJUST THE SCHEDULE. OMNIBUS MOTION BY MARCH 28TH,

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS BY APRIL 11TH, AND THEN OPPOSITIONS WOULD

MOVE OUT. I'LL GIVE YOU TO APRIL 30TH, COUNSEL, FOR THE

OPPOSITIONS, AND THEN REPLIES WOULD BE DUE BY MAY 9TH. AND

WE'LL DO A WRITTEN ORDER WITH THOSE DATES, SO EVERYONE HAS

THEM.

MR. STUART: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. STUART: WE'D REQUEST SIMPLY A BIT MORE LEAD TIME.

THAT'S GOING TO BE LESS THAN 30 DAYS ON OPPOSING WHAT LOOKS TO

BE A SUBSTANTIAL MOTION, AND THE DEFENDANTS AT THIS POINT HAVE

HAD SINCE JANUARY 9 TO LOOK AT THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.

THAT GIVES THEM 90 DAYS TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE

OPPOSING. WE WOULD REQUEST THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME, 90 DAYS,

TO OPPOSE.

THE COURT: I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU 90 DAYS TO

OPPOSE A MOTION TO DISMISS, COUNSEL. IF YOU WANT MORE TIME

THAN THE TIME THE COURT IS ALLOTTING, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN

THE NORMAL TWO WEEKS YOU WOULD GET, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE

YOU HAVE SERVED, I'LL GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL TIME. I'LL GIVE

YOU 30 DAYS.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 33


18

SO ONE MORE TIME. MARCH 28TH FOR THE OMNIBUS MOTION,

APRIL 11TH FOR ANY SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS OR JOINDERS, AND THE

COURT WILL GIVE THE PLAINTIFFS UNTIL MAY 16TH TO FILE AN

OPPOSITION, AND MAY 30TH FOR REPLIES. AND, AGAIN, IT WILL BE

ON THE PAPERS UNLESS I ASK FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

MR. STUART: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SANCHEZ: YOUR HONOR RICKY SANCHEZ, COUNTY

COUNSEL. ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS

ARE LIMITED TO 10 PAGES?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE.

MR. AGLE: ON THE OMNIBUS BRIEF, A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS

ARE GOING TO BE ADDED TO IT. CAN WE GET AN EXTENDED PAGE

LIMIT?

THE COURT: YES, THE OMNIBUS BRIEF, PLEASE, NOT MORE

THAN 30 PAGES. I THINK THE POINTS ARE VERY DIRECTED HERE. GOD

KNOWS VOLUME HAS BEEN THE TOUCHSTONE OF THIS CASE SO FAR. I

DON'T NEED TO HEAR IT. BUT I WOULD LIKE THE OMNIBUS BRIEF TO

BE 30 PAGES OR LESS. YOU DO NOT NEED TO REPEAT THE FACTS. YOU

DON'T NEED TO GIVE ME ANY MORE HISTORY. I THINK WE NEED TO

PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF FROM THE FIRST ROUND OF MOTIONS TO

DISMISS.

SIMILARLY WITH ANY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL, MINIMIZE THE

AMOUNT OF FACTUAL RECITATION AND JUST GIVE ME WHATEVER IS VERY

SPECIFIC THAT REQUIRES THE COURT TO KNOW ABOUT WHATEVER THE

LEGAL ISSUE IS THAT YOU'RE ARGUING FOR GROUNDS FOR GROUNDS FOR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 34


19

MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 12(B)(6). SO IS THAT WORKING NOW? DO

WE HAVE DATES EVERYONE CAN WORK WITH?

MR. WEBB, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

MR. WEBB: YES, IF I MAY. IF IT PLEASE THE COURT,

WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED COMBINED RESPONSE BRIEF

WOULD THE SAME NUMBER MUCH PAGES, PAGE LIMITATION APPLY?

THE COURT: OH, DEAR GOD. YES, BUT YOUR RESPONSE TO

THE OMNIBUS BRIEF CAN'T EXCEED 30 PAGES.

MR. WEBB: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I DON'T WANT A BUNCH OF ATTACHMENTS THAT

SAY, GO SEE SOMETHING ELSE. I WANT A RESPONSE THAT'S 30 PAGES.

MR. WEBB: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OR LESS. WITH REGARD TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFS, YOU'RE ALSO LIMITED TO 10 PAGES IN RESPONSE TO EACH

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF THAT MIGHT BE FILED BY ANY OF THE

DEFENDANTS. THIS IS STILL GOING BE A LOT OF PAPER.

MR. GREBING: CHARLES GREBING. SORRY TO BE PICKY. I

REPRESENT SHARON BLANCHET. SHE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR

ACTION BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST HER WHICH WAS DISMISSED IN

THE SUPERIOR COURT AFTER A HEARING. I HAVE PRESENTED IN MY

ORIGINAL MOTION TO THE COURT ON HER BEHALF THE DOCUMENTS FOR

THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF TO DEMONSTRATE THAT FACT.

IF I CAN'T GO BEYOND THE 10, I NEED SOME PAGES TO BE ABLE TO

GIVE YOU THOSE DOCUMENTS.

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. EXHIBITS THAT THE COURT IS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 35


20

BEING ASKED TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ARE NOT PART OF YOUR

10-PAGE LIMIT.

MR. GREBING: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THE 10 PAGES IS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT. BUT

WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS IF YOU GET TO YOUR 10 PAGES AND

THEN YOU START DOING DECLARATIONS TO GET STUFF IN, IT'S LIKE,

LET'S MAKE EXHIBITS --

MR. GREBING: UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: -- THAT ARE REAL EXHIBITS. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE GOT ANYTHING?

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL ISSUE THE SCHEDULE AGAIN.

QUICKLY, ONE MORE TIME JUST TO RUN THROUGH IT:

OMNIBUS MOTION, MARCH 28TH; SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS,

APRIL 11TH; PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITIONS, MAY 16TH; REPLY BRIEFS MAY

30TH ON THE PAPERS. 30 PAGES FOR THE OMNIBUS MOTION, 30 PAGES

FOR THE OPPOSITION AND THE OMNIBUS MOTION, 10 PAGES FOR THE

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS AND THE OPPOSITIONS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL

MOTIONS. AND I'M GOING TO LIMIT REPLIES TO 5 PAGES. YOU GET

10 PAGES FOR THE OMNIBUS MOTION AND 5 PAGES FOR REPLY TO THE

SUPPLEMENTALS. YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EXCEED THAT.

THAT'S ALL.

MR. STUART: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE ONE OTHER MATTER, JUST

HOUSEKEEPING CLEAN UP FROM THE DECEMBER 19TH HEARING, IF I MAY.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. STUART: AT THE DECEMBER 19TH HEARING, THE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 36


21

PLAINTIFF HAD SCHEDULED A RULE 11 MOTION. THE COURT DID NOT

ADDRESS THAT MOTION. IT INSTEAD ADDRESSED THE INITIAL BODY OF

RULES OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS. THERE WAS A COUNTERMOTION FOR

RULE 11 SANCTIONS THAT WAS BROUGHT BY THE DEFENDANTS, THE

JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS, THAT THE COURT DID DENY. HOWEVER, THE

COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RULE 11

SANCTIONS. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ACTUALLY SCHEDULED SOME TIME IN

JANUARY. IT SORT OF -- I THINK IT MAY HAVE SLID BETWEEN THE

CRACKS WITH THE GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE COURT'S TAKING OFF

THE OTHER --

THE COURT: WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE MOTION?

MR. STUART: RULE 11?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. STUART: THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE

FRIVOLOUS.

THE COURT: WELL, SINCE THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS

GRANTED, THEY WEREN'T FRIVOLOUS, SO THE MOTION IS DENIED.

MR. STUART: I WOULD GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE COURT'S

RULING. HOWEVER JUST AS A MATTER FOR THE RECORD --

THE COURT: WELL, IT'S NOW RULED ON, ON THE RECORD.

IT'S DENIED. THE MOTIONS WERE NOT FRIVOLOUS IN THAT THEY WERE

GRANTED.

MR. STUART: MAY WE HAVE AN ORDER ON THAT, PLEASE?

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MR. STUART: MAY WE HAVE A WRITTEN ORDER ON THAT?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 37


22

THE COURT: IT WILL BE IN A MINUTE ORDER OF THIS

HEARING. YOUR MOTION IS DENIED FOR SANCTIONS IF THE BASIS OF

THAT MOTION WAS THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE FRIVOLOUS.

THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS. YOU WERE LUCKY YOU

WEREN'T SANCTIONED FOR FILING A COMPLAINT REPRESENTING A

CORPORATION WHEN YOU KNEW, AS A DISBARRED LAWYER, YOU HAD NO

RIGHT TO DO THAT. AND SO YOU'RE REALLY PUSHING YOUR LUCK,

MR. STUART. THAT MOTION IS DENIED. IT WILL BE REFLECTED IN

THE MINUTE ORDER FOR TODAY IF IT'S STILL OUTSTANDING.


THE COURT: YES.

MR. GRAHAM: YOUR HONOR, MY NAME IS ADAM GRAHAM. I

HAVE AN APPLICATION PENDING TO -- FOR CO-COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF,

AND AS TO THE RECORD, THERE'S NOTHING BEEN DONE WITH IT. I WAS

JUST WONDERING...

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION PENDING FOR WHAT?

MR. GRAHAM: I'M AN ATTORNEY IN LOS ANGELES. I AM A

MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA BAR, AND I FILED TO BE ABLE TO APPEAR

IN THIS CASE.

THE COURT: OKAY. IT HASN'T GOTTEN TO ME YET. I

HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

MR. GRAHAM: OKAY.

THE COURT: ARE YOU APPLYING TO BE LOCAL COUNSEL?

MR. GRAHAM: I AM GOING TO BE CO-COUNSEL.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 38


23

THE COURT: JUST COUNSEL OF RECORD?

MR. GRAHAM: CO-COUNSEL.

THE COURT: YOU REALLY TO WANT DO THAT?

MR. GRAHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. FINE. WELL, WHEN IT GETS TO ME,

I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT IN DUE COURSE. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET.

MR. SCHAFBUCH: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD,

BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR EVERYTHING CLEARLY HERE. WAS IT THE

SAN DIEGO BAR IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE KEY CONTACT PEOPLE FOR

HELPING FACILITATE THIS OMNIBUS?

THE COURT: YES. MR. LUCAS, WHO IS REPRESENTING THE

CALIFORNIA BAR ASSOCIATION, HAS TAKEN ON THE LABORING OAR TO

ORGANIZE THE OMNIBUS MOTION. EVERYONE, HOWEVER, IS INVITED TO

WORK WITH HIM TO HAVE THEIR ISSUES, TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE

GENERIC TO THE GROUP, BE INCLUDED IN THAT MOTION; SO YOU SHOULD

CONTACT MR. LUCAS.

THE CLERK: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, THE MINUTE

ORDER OF THE DECEMBER 19TH DATE DOES REFLECT THAT THE MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS WAS DENIED. IT ALSO CONSISTENTLY WITH THE ORDER

THAT WAS ISSUED, DOCKET NO. 88, DATED DECEMBER 23RD, ALSO

ADDRESSES THAT MOTION.

THE COURT: YES, IT DOES. COURT DENIES PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO STRIKE. NO, THIS IS THE SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS. HE SAID HE HAD A MOTION. HIS MOTION IS DENIED.

IT'S DONE WITH.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 39


24

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? ANYBODY? GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

MR. LUCAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.


MR. SCHAFBUCH: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.


(COURT IN RECESS AT 2:29 P.M.)

*** END OF REQUESTED TRANSCRIPT ***

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

I, MAURALEE RAMIREZ, FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER,

IN AND FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT PURSUANT TO

SECTION 753, TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE THAT THE FOREGOING IS

A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED

PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER AND THAT THE

TRANSCRIPT PAGE FORMAT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS

OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES.

DATED THIS 24THDAY OF MARCH 2014.

/S/ MAURALEE RAMIREZ________________MAURALEE RAMIREZ, CSR NO. 11674, RPRFEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 40


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



CALIFORNIA COALITION FORFAMILIES AND CHILDREN,LEXEVIA, PC, COLBERN C.STUART,

Plaintiffs,


ORDER

vs.SAN DIEGO COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter came before the court on December 19, 2013 for a hearing on the

Superior Court defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 16] and motion for sanctions

[Doc. No. 23]1; the motion to dismiss of defendants Commission on Judicial

Performance, Brad Battson, and Lawrence J. Simi [Doc. No. 22]; and on plaintiffs’

motion to strike [Doc. No. 19.] This order memorializes matters discussed at the

hearing. To the extent this written order conflicts with anything said at the hearing, this

written order governs.

For the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss are granted in part and

1 The “Superior Court defendants” are (1) Superior Court of California, County of San Diego;(2) Honorable Robert J. Trentacosta, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court; (3) Michael M. Roddy,Executive Officer of the Superior Court; (4) the Honorable Lisa Schall; (5) the Honorable Lorna A.Alksne; (6) the Honorable Christine K. Goldsmith; (7) the Honorable Jeannie Lowe (ret.); (8) theHonorable William H. McAdam, Jr.; (9) the Honorable Edlene C. McKenzie; and (10) the HonorableJoel R. Wohlfeil. [Doc. No. 16-1 at 9.]

- 1 - 13cv1944


ER 41


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

denied in part. The court denies both the Superior Court defendants’ motion for

sanctions and plaintiffs’ motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Colbern C. Stuart, California Coalition for Families and Children

(“California Coalition”), and Lexevia, PC filed their complaint on August 20, 2013.

[Doc. No. 1.] Stuart is a co-founder, the president, and the Chief Executive Officer of

California Coalition. [Id. ¶ 105.] Stuart also founded Lexevia, a professional law

corporation, in 2008. [Id. ¶ 107.]

Plaintiffs assert approximately 36 claims against 49 defendants purportedly

involved in San Diego’s family-law community, including judges, lawyers, law firms,

psychologists, social workers, and various state and municipal entities. On August 26,

2013, the court sealed the complaint because plaintiffs had listed the home addresses

of several judges.

The complaint totals 175 pages, with an additional 1156 pages in exhibits and

numerous acronyms of plaintiffs’ invention.2 Plaintiffs do not begin setting forth

specific factual allegations as to defendants’ challenged conduct until page 57,

paragraph 113.

Though the complaint lacks focus, plaintiffs’ claims appear to arise mainly out

of two events: an April 2010 San Diego County Bar Association (“SDCBA”) seminar

and plaintiff Colbern Stuart’s divorce proceedings. The factual allegations as to these

events follow.

2 The court, for its own reference, created the following non-exhaustive key of plaintiffs’many acronyms: “CRCCS: civil rights civil and criminal statutes; DDI: domestic dispute industry;DDIA: domestic dispute industry advocates; DDICE: domestic dispute industry criminal enterprise;DDI-FICE: domestic dispute industry forensic investigator criminal enterprise; DDI-IACE: domesticdispute industry intervention advocate criminal enterprise; DDIJO: domestic dispute industry judicialofficers; DDIL: domestic dispute industry litigants; DDIPS: domestic dispute industry professionalservices; DDISO: domestic dispute industry security officers; DDISW: domestic dispute industrysocial workers; DVILS: domestic violence intervention legislative scheme; FFR: federal family civiland other rights; FFRESSA: federal family rights reform, exercise, support, and advocacy; FLC:family law community; FL-IACE: family law intervention advocate criminal enterprise; SAD:schemes and artifices to defraud; SD-DDICE: San Diego domestic dispute industry criminalenterprise; TCE: target community estates.”

- 2 - 13cv1944


ER 42


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. The SDCBA Seminar

The San Diego County Bar Association hosted a seminar on April 15, 2010, with

the theme: “Litigants Behaving Badly–Do Professional Services Really Work?” [Doc.

No. 1 ¶¶ 114-16.] Members of plaintiff California Coalition learned of the seminar in

advance and decided to organize a demonstration outside the seminar to engage

professionals involved with the family law community. [Id. ¶¶ 117-19, 123.]

California Coalition created pamphlets and signs to display at the seminar, adopting the

counter-theme: “Judges Behaving Badly–If You Don’t Follow The Law, Why Would

We?” [Id. ¶ 118-19.] Defendants learned of California Coalition’s intention to

demonstrate outside the seminar prior to the event. [Id. ¶ 124.]

California Coalition members arrived early at the seminar and peacefully

distributed pamphlets to attendees. [Id. ¶¶ 124-127.] Plaintiff Stuart did not gather

outside with other California Coalition members but instead entered the seminar. [Id.

¶ 127.] At the time of the seminar, Stuart was a member of the SDCBA, and he had

purchased admission through the SDCBA’s online store. [Id.] About 100 legal

professionals attended the seminar. [Id. ¶ 129.] In addition, approximately 15

uniformed Sheriff’s deputies were present and moved closer to Stuart once he selected

a seat. [Id.]

The seminar began with introductory remarks by Family Law Division

Supervising Judge Lorna Alksne. [Id. ¶ 130.] After about two minutes of speaking,

however, Judge Alksne announced that she needed to take a break “so we can straighten

something out.” [Id.] Judge Alksne then walked to the back of the conference room

and conferred with several defendants. [Id. ¶¶ 131, 132.] Soon two security officers

employed by defendant Off Duty Officer, Inc. approached Stuart, confirmed that he was

Colbern Stuart, and then asked Stuart to leave the seminar. [Id. ¶ 133.] Stuart refused.

[Id.] The two security guards then went back to the huddle and soon returned with two

Sheriff’s deputies. [Id. ¶ 135.] When Stuart again refused to leave, the men “forced

Stuart to stand, grabbed his arms, forced his hands behind his back, and handcuffed

- 3 - 13cv1944


ER 43


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

him. They searched his person, emptied his pockets, seized his property . . . [and]

forcibly led Stuart out of the seminar in front of dozens of [his] professional

colleagues.” [Id. ¶ 135.]

The officers released Stuart outside of the SDCBA building and told him he

could not return. [Id. ¶ 135.] The seminar reconvened, and several SDCBA panel

speakers then joked that Stuart “got what he asked for . . . let’s see if that gets them any

publicity.” [Id.]

2. Stuart’s Divorce

On about September 12, 2008, and based on the recommendations of defendants

Sharon Blanchet and Judge Wohlfeil, plaintiff Stuart hired defendant Doyne, Inc. to

mediate his divorce. [Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 216, 232, 237, 238.] Judge Wohlfeil oversaw the

Stuart dissolution until December 2008, when the matter was transferred to defendant

Judge Schall. [Id. ¶ 240.]

Doyne, Inc. made various representations in its contract with Stuart, for instance

that the mediation process would be completed “in a month or two” and that fees and

expenses would not exceed the initial $5,000 retainer. [Id. ¶¶ 217(F), (G).] Stuart

asserts that Doyne, Inc. breached the contract in June 2009 by, among other things,

extending the mediation for a longer period than was agreed to, filing false reports with

San Diego County’s child protective services alleging that Stuart had “held his son

upside down over a balcony,” and causing Stuart to lose custody of his son. [Id. ¶ 220.]

As a result, on about March 1, 2009, Stuart terminated Doyne’s services. [Id. ¶ 221.]

Stuart alleges that, in retaliation, Doyne attempted to extort money from Stuart and

made false statements in a hearing relating to Stuart’s son. [Id. ¶ 224.] In addition, in

May 2009, Doyne telephoned Stuart at his home and requested that Stuart pay Doyne

for services he falsely claimed to have provided. [Id. ¶ 225.]

As referenced above, plaintiffs assert approximately 36 causes of action arising

variously under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and

- 4 - 13cv1944


ER 44


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the common law. The Superior Court defendants filed their motion to dismiss on

September 30, 2013. [Doc. No. 16.] The Commission on Judicial Performances moved

to dismiss on November 14, 2013. [Doc. No. 22.] Ten more motions to dismiss were

subsequently filed and scheduled for hearing on January 24, 2014. [Doc. Nos. 48, 49,

50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 62, 67, 73. ] As set forth below, however, the court dismisses the

entire complaint and therefore deems those latter ten motions withdrawn.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia

Plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia are each identified in the complaint

as corporations. [Id. ¶¶ 100, 107.] Corporations must appear in court through an

attorney. D-Deam Ltd. P’Ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th

Cir. 2004); CivLR 83.3(k). Here, the title page of plaintiffs’ complaint indicates that

Dean Browning Webb is the attorney for plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia,

and that Mr. Webb’s pro hac vice is pending. [Doc. No. 1 at 1.] In addition, the

complaint’s signature page again lists Mr. Webb as attorney for California Coalition

and Lexevia, and above his name contains an “/s/” symbol and signature line.

Nonetheless, since the complaint’s filing on August 20, 2013, neither Mr. Webb nor any

other attorney has entered an appearance for California Coalition or Lexevia. Further,

counsel for the Superior Court defendants informs in a declaration:

On August 26, 2013, I received a voice mail message from Mr. Webb. Inhis message, Mr. Webb informed me that Mr. Stuart used his name on theComplaint without his permission. Mr. Webb confirmed this informationto me in subsequent telephone conversations and indicated that heintended to call the federal Clerk of Court’s office to advise that office thathe had not agreed to represent plaintiffs in this case.

[Doc. No. 16-3 ¶ 4.]

No counsel appeared for California Coalition or Lexevia at the motions hearing

held December 19, 2013. Because plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia do not

appear through counsel, the court DISMISSES their claims without prejudice.

- 5 - 13cv1944


ER 45


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Plaintiff Colbern Stuart

The court also DISMISSES plaintiff Stuart’s claims without prejudice for failure

to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Here, plaintiffs

violate Rule 8(a)(2) in at least three ways.

First, because plaintiffs assert most of their claims on behalf of all three plaintiffs,

neither the court nor defendants can distinguish Stuart’s asserted harm from the

corporations’. See, e.g., Doc. No.1 ¶¶ 148, 150, 157, 161, 171, 175, 179, 183, 190, 192,

204, 206, 208, 215, 347, 349, 352, 354, 356, 358, 360, 366, 368, 370, 372, 374, 385

(“As an actual and proximate result, PLAINTIFFS have been HARMED.”) Because

the corporations have been dismissed for failure to obtain counsel, and the complaint

does not identify the individual harm Stuart suffered for each claim, Stuart does not set

forth plain statements of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief.

Second, Stuart fails to clearly identify each separate claim for relief. Count One,

for instance, is labeled:

Illegal Search, Seizure, Assault, Battery, Arrest, and ImprisonmentDeprivation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law

42 U.S.C. 1983U.S. Const. 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 14th Amend.

Supplemental State ClaimsAgainst Defendants

SDCBA, ODO, DDISO, DOES 1-15, GORE, DDIJO DOES1-50, SAC,SIMI, BATSON

[Doc. No. 1 ¶ 141.] The court cannot discern just how many separate state and federal

claims Stuart intends to assert here. Further, Stuart fails to connect his factual

allegations to the numerous causes of action identified. If Stuart sincerely means to

assert that defendants violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and

Fourteenth Amendment rights, he must identify the factual allegations that support each

alleged violation.

Finally, while dismissal on the basis of length or verbosity alone is inappropriate,

Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 530 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth

- 6 - 13cv1944


ER 46


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Circuit has affirmed dismissal on Rule 8 grounds where the complaint is

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant;” McHenry v.

Renne, 74 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996); “verbose, confusing and conclusory,”

Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981); or where it is

“impossible to designate the cause or causes of action attempted to be alleged in the

complaint,” Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980).

Here, plaintiffs’ complaint totals 175 pages, with an additional 1156 pages in

exhibits, substantially exceeding the length of complaints considered in Ninth Circuit

cases that have affirmed dismissal on Rule 8 grounds.3 Further, while length alone is

not grounds for dismissal, plaintiffs’ complaint here is confusing, redundant,

conclusory, and buries its factual allegations in pages of generalized grievances about

the family courts. The prolixity and inscrutability of plaintiffs’ complaint is unduly

prejudicial to defendants, who face “the onerous task of combing through [plaintiffs’

lengthy complaint] just to prepare an answer that admits or denies such allegations and

to determine what claims and allegations must be defended or otherwise litigated.”

Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir.

2011). Further, plaintiffs’ complaint is unmanageable for the court. As the Ninth

Circuit noted in McHenry:

The judge wastes half a day in chambers preparing the “short and plainstatement” which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit. [The judge] thenmust manage the litigation without knowing what claims are made againstwhom. This leads to discovery disputes and lengthy trials, prejudicinglitigants in other case[s] who follow the rules, as well as defendants in thecase in which the prolix pleading is filed. “[T]he rights of litigantsawaiting their turns to have other matters resolved must be considered....” Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 675; Von Poppenheim, 442 F.2d [1047, 1054 (9th Cir.1971).]

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1180.

The court therefore DISMISSES plaintiff Stuart’s claims for failure to comply

3 See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1174 (53 pages); Hatch, 758 F.2d at 415 (70 pages); Nevijel, 651F.2d at 674 (48 pages); and Schmidt, 614 F.2d at 1224 (30 pages).

- 7 - 13cv1944


ER 47


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with Rule 8. Dismissal is without prejudice and with leave to amend, with the

following exceptions. The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Stuart’s claims

against the defendant judges for damages arising out of judicial acts within the

jurisdiction of their courts. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986).

The court also DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Stuart’s claims against the

Commission on Judicial Performance and against its officials, Simi and Battson, to the

extent the latter are sued for damages in their official capacity. U.S. Const. Amend XI;

Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 976 (S.D. Cal. 1998); Cal. Const. Art. IV, §

18(H).

In composing his amended complaint, Stuart must heed the statute of limitations

for Section 1983 and Section 1985 claims brought in this court, which is generally two

years. Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020,

1026 (9th Cir. 2007); McDougal v. County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir.

1991) (§ 1985 claims are governed by the same statute of limitations as § 1983 claims.)

“Generally, the statute of limitations begins to run when a potential plaintiff knows or

has reason to know of the asserted injury.” Action Apartment, 509 F.3d at 1026-27.

Here, Stuart’s claims appear to arise primarily out of two events: the April 15, 2010

San Diego County Bar Association seminar and his dissolution mediation before

defendant Doyne, Inc., which concluded in about November 2009. [Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 24,

241.] These claims therefore appear barred by the statute of limitations. To the extent

Stuart contends that equitable tolling should apply, he must set forth specific allegations

in his amended complaint to support such a theory.

CONCLUSION

The motions to dismiss of the Superior Court and Commission on Judicial

Performance defendants [Doc. Nos. 16, 22] are granted in part and denied in part. The

complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Stuart has leave to file an amended

complaint no later than Thursday, January 9, 2014. Stuart may assert claims only on

his behalf and should be wary of the immunity and statute-of-limitation issues

- 8 - 13cv1944


ER 48


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

addressed above. Though Stuart appears pro se, the court notes that he formally was

a licensed member of the California bar with a complex litigation practice. [Doc. No.

1 ¶ 102.] It is anticipated that Stuart has the requisite knowledge and training to submit

a complaint that complies with Rule 8 and appropriately and coherently identifies his

causes of action and the specific defendants he alleges liable for his asserted damages

without unnecessary verbiage, argument, and rhetoric.

The court denies plaintiffs’ motion to strike and the Superior Court’s motion for

sanctions. [Doc. Nos. 19, 23.] Finally, the court deems withdrawn the remaining

motions to dismiss. [Doc. Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 62, 67, 73. ]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 23, 2013


- 9 - 13cv1944


ER 49


1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILY ) CASE NO. 13CV1944-CAB(BLM) AND CHILDREN, )

5 ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFFS, )

6 ) DECEMBER 19, 2013 VS. )

7 ) SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,) MOTION HEARING

8 ET AL., ) )

9 DEFENDANTS. )

10

11

12

13

14 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

15 BEFORE THE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 OFFICIAL REPORTER: MAURALEE A. RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR 333 BROADWAY, SUITE 420

24 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 [email protected]

25 619-994-2526


ER 50


2

1 APPEARANCES:

2 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: COLBERN C. STUART, III IN PRO SE

3 4891 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SUITE 102 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110

4

5 FOR THE DEFENDANT MATTHEW L. GREEN SUPERIOR COURT BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP

6 OF SAN DIEGO 655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR COUNTY, AND NAMED SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

7 JUDICIAL OFFICERS:

8 FOR THE DEFENDANT RICHARD F. WOLFE

9 COMMISSION ON OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUDICIAL 110 WEST "A" STREET, SUITE 1100

10 PERFORMANCE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 DEFENDANT SIMI,

11 DEFENDANT BATSON:

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


ER 51


3

1 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2013; 2:00 P.M.

2 THE CLERK: WE ARE ON RECORD THIS AFTERNOON ON CASE

3 13CV1944-CAB-BLM, CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN,

4 ET AL., VERSUS SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, ET AL., ON

5 CALENDAR FOR MOTION HEARING.

6 IF I COULD PLEASE HAVE COUNSEL STATE THEIR APPEARANCE,

7 BEGINNING WITH PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL.

8 MR. STUART: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. MY NAME IS

9 COLE STEWART.

10 THE COURT: THANK YOU.

11 MR. GREEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. MATTHEW GREEN

12 ON BEHALF OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

13 SAN DIEGO, AND SEVERAL -- WELL, ALL THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS THAT

14 ARE NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT.

15 THE COURT: THANK YOU.

16 MR. WOLFE: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. RICHARD WOLFE

17 I'M APPEARING FOR THE COMMISSION DEFENDANTS, THE COMMISSION ON

18 JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE AND DEFENDANTS SIMI AND BATSON.

19 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

20 ALL RIGHT. BEFORE THE COURT TODAY ARE MOTIONS TO

21 DISMISS BROUGHT BY THE SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS, A MOTION TO

22 DISMISS BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION, A MOTION TO STRIKE FILED BY

23 THE PLAINTIFF, AND A MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BROUGHT BY THE

24 SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS.

25 TO PREPARE FOR THIS HEARING, I'LL JUST START BY SAYING


ER 52


4

1 THAT MY LAW CLERK AND I SPENT WHAT I CONSIDER AN UNACCEPTABLE

2 AND INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS

3 COMPLAINT AND WHAT IT STATES AND WHAT THE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE

4 AND AGAINST WHO. AND IN THE WHOLE FRAMEWORK OF IT, IT IS A

5 COMPLAINT THAT IS IN THE NATURE OF THE SORT OF THING I MIGHT

6 EXPECT TO SEE FROM AN UNEDUCATED PERSON WHO IS IN CUSTODY WHO

7 KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE LAW AND HAS SIMPLY PULLED OUT BOOKS AND

8 STATUTES AND RECITED THE CAUSES OF ACTION WITHOUT ANY

9 RECITATION TO FACTS OR RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEFENDANTS IN THE

10 CASE.

11 AND WE STRUGGLE IN THOSE PRO SE CASES TO TRY TO FIND

12 WHAT THE CLAIM IS AND WHAT THE PURPOSE IS SO THAT PEOPLE WHO

13 NEED THE HELP OF A COURT GET IT. MR. STUART, YOU ARE, AS THE

14 COURT UNDERSTANDS IT, A PREVIOUSLY PRACTICING LAWYER WITH A

15 PROMINENT LAW FIRM, AND I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE TO DO THAT FOR

16 SOMEBODY LIKE YOU. AND IT'S FRUSTRATING AND IT'S REALLY

17 DISAPPOINTING AND IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE WASTE OF THIS COURT'S

18 TIME.

19 THE PLAINTIFF CORPORATIONS, THE CALIFORNIA COALITION

20 FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN AND LEXEVIA CORPORATION, THEIR

21 COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

22 THERE IS NO INDICATION THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

23 ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT SUGGESTS THAT A MR. WEBB WAS GOING TO

24 APPEAR FOR THEM, HE HAS NEVER FILED AN APPEARANCE IN THIS

25 COURT, HE HAS NOT FILED A PRO HAD VICE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE


ER 53


5

1 NO CONTACT WITH THE COURT, HE IS NOT HERE TODAY, HE DIDN'T SIGN

2 ANY OF THE PLEADINGS IN THE CASE.

3 IT IS AN INAPPROPRIATE PLEADING FOR A PRO SE TO HAVE

4 FILED EVERYTHING ON BEHALF OF CORPORATE ENTITIES. THEIR CLAIMS

5 ARE DISMISSED, NOT ONLY AS TO THE DEFENDANTS HERE TODAY BUT ALL

6 THE DEFENDANTS IN THE CASE. THEY DON'T HAVE STANDING TO BE

7 HERE WITHOUT COUNSEL, AND THEIR CAMES ARE DISMISSED.

8 NOW THEY'RE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND IF THEY

9 GET COUNSEL AND THEY CAN PROVIDE A COMPLAINT -- AND BEFORE THEY

10 FILE ANYTHING, THOUGH, I ACTUALLY WANT TO HAVE COUNSEL MAKE AN

11 APPEARANCE TO THIS COURT TO TELL ME THAT HE HAS REVIEWED THEIR

12 CLAIMS AND IS COMPETENT AND CONFIDENT THAT THEY CAN BE BROUGHT

13 AND THAT THEY'RE MEANINGFUL. BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, THEIR

14 CLAIMS, ANY CLAIMS THEY HAVE, ARE DISMISSED.

15 WITH REGARD TO THE THINGS THAT YOU, MR. STUART, CAN

16 REPRESENT YOURSELF ON AS A PRO SE LITIGANT, THE COURT WOULD

17 ALSO JUST NOTE THIS IS A VERIFIED COMPLAINT, AND IN IT, YOU

18 STATE YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE. THAT'S NOT

19 QUITE TRUE, IS IT, SIR?

20 MR. STUART: I BELIEVE IT SAID AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES,

21 I WAS AN ATTORNEY. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY GOING BACK SOME TIME. I

22 WAS DISBARRED ON, I THINK, DECEMBER 12TH, 2012.

23 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU'RE NOT A LICENSED

24 PRACTICING ATTORNEY NOW, RIGHT?

25 MR. STUART: RIGHT.


ER 54


6

1 THE COURT: YOU'VE BEEN DISBARRED?

2 MR. STUART: THAT'S CORRECT.

3 THE COURT: IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SUSPENDED

4 IN ANY OTHER STATES YOU PREVIOUSLY HELD A LICENSE IN?

5 MR. STUART: THAT'S CORRECT.

6 THE COURT: YOU CAN REPRESENT YOURSELF. THAT'S NOT A

7 PROBLEM. BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS COMPLAINT IS PREPARED, IT

8 IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE COURT TO DISENTANGLE YOUR PERSONAL

9 CLAIMS FROM THOSE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON

10 BEHALF OF THE CORPORATE ENTITIES. EVERYTHING IS ALL JUMBLED

11 TOGETHER.

12 AND SO AT THE VERY LEAST, THE COURT WOULD HAVE YOU

13 AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO BE SOLELY REPRESENTING YOUR RIGHTS AND

14 INTERESTS AND THE VIOLATIONS YOU BELIEVE ARE SPECIFIC TO YOU,

15 AND DISENTANGLE ALL OF THE CLAIMS THAT ARE MADE ON BEHALF OF

16 THE CORPORATION, THEIR POLITICAL OR FAMILY LAW AGENDA, ANY

17 CLAIMS THAT SMACK OF CLASS REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF

18 INDIVIDUALS WHO YOU FEEL ARE HARMED BY THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM.

19 YOU CAN'T REPRESENT A CLASS AS A PRO SE. YOU CAN ONLY

20 REPRESENT YOURSELF. AND I CAN'T DISCERN FROM THIS COMPLAINT

21 WHAT IS JUST SPECIFIC TO YOU AS OPPOSED TO THIS BROADER AGENDA

22 THAT YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

23 THE OTHER PROBLEM I HAVE AND, THEREFORE, THINK THE

24 COMPLAINT FAILS UNDER RULE 8 TO BE A PLAIN AND CONCISE

25 STATEMENT OF YOUR CAUSES OF ACTION IS REFLECTED IN THE WAYS THE


ER 55


7

1 CAUSES OF ACTION ARE SET FORWARD. FOR EXAMPLE, EACH COUNT, AND

2 WE'LL START WITH COUNT 1 JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU LIST, AND THIS

3 IS AT PAGE 69 ON YOUR COMPLAINT, COUNT 1, ILLEGAL SEARCH AND

4 SEIZURE, ASSAULT, BATTERY, ARREST, IMPRISONMENT, DEPRIVATION OF

5 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 1983, FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH,

6 SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL

7 STATE LAW CLAIMS. HOW IS ANYBODY SUPPOSED TO KNOW FROM THAT

8 WHAT THEY'RE BEING ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE INDIVIDUALLY SO THAT

9 THEY CAN FILE AN ANSWER?

10 AND THE COURT CAN'T RATIONALLY FIGURE OUT HOW YOU

11 COULD POSSIBLY HAVE A SIXTH, SEVENTH OR EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM

12 IN THIS CASE. THE SIXTH AMENDMENT HAS TO DO WITH THE RIGHT TO

13 JURY AND COMPETENT COUNSEL IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL. THE SEVENTH

14 AMENDMENT IS FOR THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN A CIVIL CASE,

15 NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN THIS

16 CASE. AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT YOU BE IN CUSTODY

17 FOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.

18 THERE ARE SOME SORT OF FACTS THAT MIGHT RELATE TO THE

19 FOURTH OR THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR FIFTH

20 AMENDMENT CLAIM IS, BUT IT'S ALL SO SMOOSHED TOGETHER, AND THEN

21 IT'S JUST A SERIES OF CONCLUSORY COMMENTS THAT THESE

22 DEFENDANTS, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM, VIOLATED THESE RIGHTS

23 WITH NOTHING ATTRIBUTING IT TO ANY OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

24 I SPENT A BUNCH OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT

25 CLAIMS WERE SPECIFIC TO YOU THAT THERE IS A FACTUAL BASIS FOR,


ER 56


8

1 AND I CAME UP WITH TWO THINGS. THERE'S WHAT YOU HAVE

2 CHARACTERIZED AS THE STUART ASSAULT AND WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE

3 BEEN YOUR REMOVAL FROM A SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

4 SEMINAR THAT TOOK PLACE ON APRIL 15TH, 2010, AND THAT THAT

5 SEEMS TO BE THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF YOUR 1983 AND 1985 CLAIMS.

6 WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S MERIT TO THAT, THEY WOULD BE BARRED BY

7 THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

8 THEY HAPPENED IN APRIL OF 2010. THIS COMPLAINT WASN'T

9 FILED UNTIL AUGUST OF 2013, AND, THEREFORE, ANY 1983 OR 1985

10 CLAIMS ARE BARRED. SO WITHOUT EVEN GETTING INTO THE MERITS OF

11 THEM, THE COURT FINDS THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE BARRED AS TO

12 EVERY DEFENDANT, AND THEY'RE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE

13 THERE'S NO WAY TO FIX THAT.

14 MR. STUART: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD ON THAT?

15 THE COURT: LET ME FINISH, AND THEN YOU CAN TELL ME

16 WHAT YOU NEED TO TELL ME.

17 THE OTHER OPERATIVE FACTUAL BASIS THAT THE COURT CAN

18 TEASE OUT OF THIS THING IS THAT YOU HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST

19 MR. DOYNE FOR HIS FUNCTIONS IN THE MEDIATION OF YOUR

20 DISSOLUTION PROCEEDINGS WHERE YOU FEEL THAT HE SOMEHOW BREACHED

21 A CONTRACT OR VIOLATED HIS DUTIES TO YOU. BASED ON THE

22 COMPLAINT, IT APPEARS HE PERFORMED THOSE DUTIES BETWEEN

23 DECEMBER OF 2008 AND NOVEMBER 2009. AND, AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT

24 THOSE ARE THE BASIS OF ANY 1983 OR 1985 CLAIMS, THEY WOULD ALSO

25 BE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.


ER 57


9

1 I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR RICO CLAIMS AT ALL. I DON'T

2 KNOW WHO YOU'RE CLAIMING DID WHAT OR WHETHER THEY DID IT TO YOU

3 OR TO THE CORPORATIONS OR IT'S JUST A GENERAL ALLEGATION THAT

4 YOU'RE DISSATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE FAMILY SAW SYSTEM RUNS IN

5 THE SUPERIOR COURT, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT CONSTITUTES A CAUSE

6 OF ACTION, AND SO THEY'RE JUST DISMISSED UNDER RULE 8 FOR

7 FAILURE TO STATE A CONCISE CLAIM, AND IN PART, BECAUSE, AGAIN,

8 EVERYTHING IS SO WEDDED TOGETHER WITH THE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE

9 DISMISSED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS SPECIFIC TO YOU. IT'S JUST A

10 BUNCH OF STUFF IN HERE. THE WHOLE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR

11 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8.

12 THE CAUSES OF ACTION THAT ARISE OUT OF THE APRIL 15,

13 2010 INCIDENT AT THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR THAT ARE GOVERNED BY

14 THIS TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH APPLY TO YOUR 1983

15 AND YOUR 1985 CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

16 BECAUSE THEY'RE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

17 THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARISE OUT OF YOUR TRANSACTIONS

18 WITH MR. DOYNE BETWEEN DECEMBER 2008 AND DECEMBER 2009 THAT

19 ALSO ARE THE BASIS OF YOUR 1983 AND 1985 ACTIONS ARE ALSO

20 DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY'RE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

21 THE COMMISSION'S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY TO BE DISMISSED,

22 THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION, IS GRANTED. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL,

23 THEY HAVE IMMUNITY IN THIS ACTION.

24 AND THE ONLY THINGS THAT I SEE LEFT THAT ARE

25 POTENTIALLY OPERATIVE AGAINST THE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS AND THE


ER 58


10

1 SUPERIOR COURT ARE ACTIONS THEY HAVE TAKEN IN THEIR JUDICIAL

2 CAPACITY AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT, RUNNING THE FAMILY COURT

3 SYSTEM, AND, THEREFORE, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

4 YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD SOME KERNEL OF AN ARGUMENT

5 THAT WHEN THEY WERE SPEAKERS AT A SEMINAR IF THEY ORDERED YOU

6 TO BE REMOVED AND THAT THAT WAS SOMEHOW A VIOLATION OF YOUR

7 FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK, THAT WASN'T JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR

8 BECAUSE THEY'RE SPEAKING AT A SEMINAR, MAYBE. I DON'T EVEN

9 NEED TO GO THERE BECAUSE IT'S BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF

10 LIMITATIONS.

11 BUT THE WHOLE REST OF THE COMPLAINT THAT ARGUES THE

12 WAY THE FAMILY COURT OPERATES IS THE OPERATION OF THE COURT,

13 AND THAT IS JUST THEY HAVE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR THAT. SO

14 THOSE DEFENDANTS ARE ALL DISMISSED AS TO THIS COMPLAINT WITH

15 PREJUDICE.

16 AND IF YOU AMEND AND YOU CAN STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

17 AGAINST ANY OF THEM THAT CLEARLY OUTLINES TO THE COURT THEY

18 ACTED IN A CAPACITY THAT WASN'T THEIR JUDICIAL CAPACITY, THEN

19 YOU CAN GO FORWARD WITH THAT, BUT I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, I'M

20 DENYING YOUR MOTION TO STRIKE.

21 I'M DENYING THEIR MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, BUT IF YOU

22 COME BACK AND GIVE ME THIS LAUNDRY LIST OF DEFENDANTS AGAIN AND

23 DO NOT GIVE ME JUSTIFIABLE REASONS AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD BE

24 DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE AND DON'T TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THEIR

25 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY AND JUST NAME THEM TO HARASS THEM,


ER 59


11

1 I WILL CONSIDER SANCTIONS AGAINST YOU, SIR.

2 SO WITH THAT, THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS ARE GRANTED, THE

3 MOTION IS GRANTED WITH LEAVE FOR YOU TO AMEND WITH CAUSES OF

4 ACTION SPECIFIC TO YOU AGAINST DEFENDANTS WHO YOU CAN

5 INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFY AND GIVE ME PLAUSIBLE FACTS AS TO WHAT

6 THEY DID TO VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS. AND YOU HAVE 20 DAYS TO FILE

7 THAT AMENDED MOTION. ANYONE ELSE WHO HAD A MOTION PENDING TO

8 DISMISS IN THIS CASE, THOSE MOTIONS ARE VACATED BECAUSE THEY'RE

9 ADDRESSING THIS COMPLAINT. IT IS NO LONGER THE OPERATIVE

10 COMPLAINT IN THE CASE.

11 A NEW COMPLAINT HAS TO BE FILED IN 20 DAYS. IF IT

12 NAMES YOUR PARTIES, ONCE IT'S FILED AND YOU'RE SERVED, I WOULD

13 LIKE TO HAVE A STATUS CONFERENCE ON HAVING SOME SORT OF JOINT

14 DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY FURTHER MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SO I DON'T GET

15 REPETITIVE MOTIONS FROM EVERYBODY.

16 WITH THAT, SIR, YOU CAN PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT ON THE

17 RECORD.

18 MR. STUART: YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU. GIVEN THE BREADTH

19 OF THE COURT'S RULING, WE WOULD REQUEST THE COURT TO ENTER A

20 MOTION UNDER RULE 54 FOR IMMEDIATE CERTIFICATION. I DON'T

21 THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE COURT OR THE PARTIES TO GO THROUGH A

22 ROUND OF AMENDMENTS GIVEN THE COURT'S EXPRESSED POSITION WITH

23 REGARDS TO THE COMPLAINTS, AND I'M CERTAIN THAT ANYTHING I SAY

24 HERE TODAY WOULD NOT BE OVERWHELMINGLY PERSUASIVE GIVEN WHAT

25 THE COURT HAS ADVISED.


ER 60


12

1 THE COURT: THAT'S DENIED BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT IN THE

2 STATUS IT'S IN, GIVEN, AGAIN, IF NOTHING ELSE, THE WAY IT IS SO

3 INTERTWINED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS WHO CANNOT BE PLAINTIFFS IN

4 THIS CASE AND YOUR OWN INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU

5 COULD APPEAL A DISMISSAL OF THIS COMPLAINT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T

6 DISCERN OUT OF IT WHO IS SUING WHO FOR WHAT.

7 MR. STUART: WE.

8 THE COURT: YOU NEED TO AMEND. YOU NEED TO PUT A

9 COMPLAINT IN FRONT OF ME THAT IS A SPECIFIC, CONCISE, PLAIN

10 STATEMENT OF THE LAW AS TO WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU THAT ANY OF THE

11 DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. THIS IS NOT THAT

12 COMPLAINT. AND IT BETTER DAMN WELL NOT BE MORE THAN 30 PAGES

13 LONG, SIR. I AM NOT LOOKING AT ANOTHER 175-PAGE COMPLAINT OF A

14 BUNCH OF RHETORIC AND IRRELEVANT MATERIAL. YOU'RE A LAWYER,

15 WRITE A COMPLAINT THAT MAKES SENSE.

16 MR. STUART: I TAKE THAT TO BE A DENIAL OF THE MOTION

17 FOR IMMEDIATE CERTIFICATION?

18 THE COURT: YES.

19 MR. STUART: AND THE LEAVE TO AMEND IS FOR THE

20 PERSONAL CLAIMS ONLY WITH REGARDS TO THE NON-1983, 1985 CLAIMS?

21 THE COURT: UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN

22 THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. IT

23 CAN'T BE MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF

24 THE COMPLAINT.

25 MR. STUART: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE DO HAVE THE POSITION


ER 61


13

1 THAT THE LONGER STATUTE SHOULD APPLY, AND WE COULD CERTAINLY --

2 WE HAVE OFFERED TO AMEND TO PLEAD TOLLING AND ACCRUAL ISSUES

3 THAT WOULD EXTEND THAT STATUTE FOR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF

4 TIME TO MAKE THE FILING TIMELY.

5 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE A

6 LEGITIMATE, NONFRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT. BUT I DON'T SEE HOW YOU'RE

7 GOING TO GET EQUITABLE TOLLING HERE. YOU WERE AWARE, YOU WERE

8 THERE, THIS HAPPENED TO YOU, YOU WERE REMOVED FROM THE

9 PREMISES, YOU KNEW THAT YOU HAD A CLAIM THAT ACCRUED OUT OF

10 THAT DAY AND YOU HAD TWO YEARS TO FILE YOUR ACTION, AND YOU

11 TOOK THREE. SO IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A BASIS THAT YOU CAN

12 BRING TO THE COURT THAT IS NOT FRIVOLOUS, TRY IT.

13 MR. STUART: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M NOT CERTAIN I

14 FOLLOW THE COURT'S RULING WITH REGARDS TO WHICH CLAIMS WERE

15 DISMISSED.

16 THE COURT: I CAN'T FIGURE OUT YOUR CLAIMS, SIR. THE

17 WHOLE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. ANY CLAIM THAT IS BASED ON THE

18 EVENTS THAT HAPPENED ON AUGUST 15TH, 2010 THAT'S SUBJECT TO A

19 TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

20 YOU FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE OF THOSE APPLIES, BECAUSE I CAN'T.

21 ANYTHING THAT'S BASED ON THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN YOU AND

22 MR. DOYNE THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2009 IS DISMISSED

23 WITH PREJUDICE IF IT HAS A TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS

24 THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT.

25 AND AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, ALL THOSE THINGS RELATE TO


ER 62


14

1 YOUR 1983 AND YOUR 1985 CLAIMS, ALL OF WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO A

2 TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE

3 GOING TO COME BACK AND ALLEGE THOSE THINGS BECAUSE YOU'RE PAST

4 THE TIME TO DO IT.

5 MR. STUART: AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT

6 HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THE COURT JUST SAID THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS

7 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THAT POSITION, BY THE WAY, WE WOULD

8 NOT OBJECT TO AT THIS POINT.

9 THE COURT: THE COMPLAINT HAS TO BE DISMISSED BECAUSE

10 I CANNOT ASCERTAIN FROM THE COMPLAINT WHAT YOUR CLAIMS ARE AS

11 OPPOSED TO THESE BROADER CLAIMS FOR PLAINTIFFS THAT ARE

12 DISMISSED FROM THE CASE. SO IF YOU WANT TO FILE AN AMENDED

13 COMPLAINT STATING YOUR CLAIMS SPECIFIC TO YOU AND GIVE ME A

14 COMPLAINT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 8 AND THAT ADDRESSES EACH AND

15 EVERY DEFENDANT THAT YOU'RE CHARGING AND SETS FORTH PLAUSIBLE

16 FACTS AS TO HOW THESE PEOPLE VIOLATED WHATEVER THE CLAIMS ARE

17 AGAINST YOU, YOU CAN AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO DO THAT. IF IN TWO

18 WEEKS, YOU DON'T -- OR 20 DAYS YOU DON'T DO THAT, THEN THE CASE

19 IS DISMISSED.

20 MR. STUART: I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT. MAY WE

21 REQUEST THAT THAT DISMISSAL BE WITH PREJUDICE RIGHT NOW?

22 THE COURT: BECAUSE YOU WANT TO TAKE AN APPEAL?

23 MR. STUART: YES, MA'AM.

24 THE COURT: DO DEFENDANTS WANT TO BE HEARD ON THAT?

25 MR. WOLFE: YOUR HONOR, I THOUGHT YOUR POINT WAS WELL


ER 63


15

1 TAKEN ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF AN APPEAL BY COMINGLING BASICALLY

2 THREE PLAINTIFFS AND COMPLICATED BY THE COMPLICATED NATURE OF

3 THE COMPLAINT. I'M NOT SURE THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD HAVE

4 ANY LUCK TRYING TO SORT OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, ESPECIALLY WHEN

5 ALL OF THESE ISSUES PUT IN, PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF APPELLATE

6 ISSUES IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER ISSUES MAY BE GOING ON HERE. SO

7 I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN THE AMENDMENT CONCEPT.

8 THE COURT: NO. MR. STUART, I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU

9 TRY TO SHORTCUT THIS TO TAKE WHAT I THINK WOULD JUST BE A

10 NIGHTMARE FOR SOME APPELLATE LAW CLERK TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT.

11 I'M GIVING YOU 20 DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

12 REPRESENTING YOUR INTERESTS IN THIS CASE.

13 YOU CAN'T APPEAL THE INTERESTS OF THE CALIFORNIA

14 COALITION FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN OR LEXEVIA BECAUSE YOU CAN'T

15 REPRESENT THEM. SO I'M NOT DISMISSING THEIR CLAIMS WITH

16 PREJUDICE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

17 THEY MAY HAVE LEGITIMATE CLAIMS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE

18 BECAUSE I DIDN'T SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE

19 THEM OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT.

20 I AM GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE A COMPLAINT

21 AND PUT IT BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE NEXT 20 DAYS THAT IS

22 SPECIFIC TO YOUR CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION. IF YOU CHOOSE

23 NOT TO FILE THAT COMPLAINT, THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED, AND IT

24 WILL AT THAT POINT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR YOUR FAILURE

25 TO PROSECUTE, HAVING FILED THIS CLAIM AND THEN CHOOSING NOT TO


ER 64


16

1 PURSUE IT. AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL THAT DECISION TO THE

2 NINTH CIRCUIT, HAVE AT IT.

3 MR. STUART: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT WOULD

4 SHORT-CIRCUIT A LOT OF THE INTERIM, CLEARLY GIVEN WHERE THE

5 COURT IS GOING WITH THIS, THIS MAKES THE PROCEEDING OF THE CASE

6 WITHOUT -- IN THIS SORT OF A POSTURE POTENTIALLY WASTEFUL FOR

7 ALL PARTIES, AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO THAT, AND GIVEN THE

8 COURT HAS EXPRESSED, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BURDEN THE COURT

9 FURTHER WITH THAT PROCESS. IT SEEMS ME TO MAKE A TREMENDOUS

10 AMOUNT OF SENSE TO CERTIFY THIS FOR APPEAL IMMEDIATELY.

11 THE COURT: I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. I'M GOING TO

12 GIVE YOU 20 DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. THE MOTION TO

13 DISMISS IS GRANTED. YOU HAVE 20 DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED

14 COMPLAINT SPECIFIC TO YOURSELF, REPRESENTING ONLY YOU AND YOUR

15 INTERESTS, AND NAMING ONLY THOSE DEFENDANTS THAT YOU CAN SET

16 FORTH PLAUSIBLE FACTS AS TO WHAT CAUSES OF ACTION THEY

17 VIOLATED. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE COUNTS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE

18 CAUSES OF ACTION LISTED IN THEM WHERE I CAN'T ASCERTAIN WHAT,

19 IN FACT, IS THE COUNT.

20 EXAMPLE AGAIN, COUNT 2, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

21 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS BREACH OF DUTY,

22 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 1983, AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATE COURT

23 CLAIMS. WHAT DOES THAT ACCOUNT FOR? IS IT A 1983 CLAIM FOR A

24 FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION, OR IS IT AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION

25 OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM?


ER 65


17

1 YOU CAN'T PUT THEM IN THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION. THEY

2 HAVE TO BE LISTED SEPARATELY, AND YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE

3 DEFENDANTS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPECIFIC FACTS ADDRESSED

4 TO YOU THAT GIVE RISE TO THOSE COUNTS.

5 I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANOTHER COMPLAINT LIKE THIS, SIR,

6 SO YOU HAVE 20 DAYS TO FILE SOMETHING IN THIS COURT THAT MAKES

7 SENSE. AND THEN AFTER WE GET THAT AND IT'S SERVED, I'LL SET A

8 STATUS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS FILING RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS BY ALL

9 THE DEFENDANTS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THEM COMING IN PIECEMEAL.

10 ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL FOR TODAY.

11 MR. STUART: YOUR HONOR, WILL THE COURT BE ISSUING A

12 WRITTEN ORDER, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FOLLOW? THAT, WE WOULD

13 REQUEST JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE. BUT MY NOTES STILL REFLECT SOME

14 THINGS THAT TO ME ARE INCONSISTENT, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT

15 TO --

16 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL GIVE YOU A WRITTEN ORDER,

17 BUT YOUR AMENDED COMPLAINT IS STILL DUE 20 DAYS FROM TODAY.

18 MR. STUART: THANK YOU.

19 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

20 MR. GREEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

21 MR. WOLFE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

22 (COURT IN RECESS AT 2:26 P.M.)

23 *** END OF REQUESTED TRANSCRIPT ***

24 -OOO-

25


ER 66


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



CALIFORNIA COALITION FORFAMILIES AND CHILDREN,LEXEVIA, PC, COLBERN C.STUART,

Plaintiffs,


ORDER

[Doc. Nos. 4, 6]

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Colbern C. Stuart’s ex parte petition

for permission to file documents electronically in this action. [Doc. No. 6.] The court

GRANTS this motion and instructs plaintiff to contact the Clerk of Court, (619)-557-

5600, for further instructions.

Also before court is plaintiff’s “ex parte application for leave to file and/or

supplement motion for harassment restraining order.” [Doc. No. 4.] Plaintiff filed this

application after receiving a letter from Kristine Nesthus, Esq., counsel for the Superior

Court of California, County of San Diego, informing plaintiff that he had improperly

included the addresses of California judges in his complaint. The court has since

ordered that plaintiff’s complaint be sealed. [Doc. Nos. 5, 9.] Thus, plaintiff’s ex parte

- 1 - 13cv1944


ER 67


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

application [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT. If plaintiff desires to amend his

complaint, he should consult the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 16, 2013


- 2 - 13cv1944


ER 68


MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Case Name: California Coalition for Families andChildren, et al. v. San Diego County BarAssociation, et al.

Case No: 13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo Ct. Deputy Lori Hernandez Rptr. Tape:

Plaintiffs’ complaint [Doc. No. 1] contains confidential information. Accordingly, theclerk of court is DIRECTED TO SEAL plaintiffs’ complaint.

Date: August 26, 2013Initials: DWG


ER 69


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


APPEAL,CLOSED,SEALDC

U.S. District CourtSouthern District of California (San Diego)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB

California Coalition for Families and Children. et al v. SanDiego County Bar Association et alAssigned to: Judge Cathy Ann BencivengoReferred to: Magistrate Judge Jill L. BurkhardtDemand: $9,999,000Case in other court: USCA, 14-56140Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

Date Filed: 08/20/2013Date Terminated: 07/09/2014Jury Demand: PlaintiffNature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/CorruptOrganizationJurisdiction: Federal Question

PlaintiffCalifornia Coalition for Families andChildren. a Delaware Corporation

represented by Eric W. Ching 402 W. Broadway, Ste 2500 San Diego, CA 92101 510-449-1091 Fax: 619-615-0904 Email: [email protected] TERMINATED: 05/09/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dean Browning Webb The Law Offices of Dean BrowningWebb 515 East 39th Street Vancouver, WA 98663 (503)629-2176 Fax: (503)629-9527 Email: [email protected] PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PlaintiffLexevia, PC a California Professional Corporation TERMINATED: 01/09/2014

PlaintiffColbern C. Stuart 4891 Pacific Highway Suite 102 San Diego, CA 92110 (858) 504-0171 Pro Se allowed to E-File

represented by Colbern C Stuart , III 4891 Pacific Highway Suite 102 San Diego, CA 92110 (858) 504-0171 Fax: (619) 231-9143


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.DefendantSan Diego County Bar Association a California Corporation

represented by Stephen D Lucas Lucas and Haverkamp 4350 Executive Drive Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92121 (858)535-4000 Fax: (858)535-4001 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantSan Diego County Sheriff'sDepartment a municipal entity

DefendantWilliam D. Gore an individual

represented by Ricky R Sanchez County of San Diego Office of CountyCounsel 1600 Pacific Highway Room 355 San Diego, CA 92101-2469 (619) 531-4874 Fax: (619) 531-6005 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantSan Diego, County of a municipal entity

represented by Ricky R Sanchez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantSuperior Court of San Diego County a municipal entity

represented by Matthew L Green Best Best and Krieger LLP 655 West Broadway 15th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 (619)525-1300 Fax: (619)233-6118


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantRobert J. Trentacostsa an individual

represented by Matthew L Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantMichael Roddy an individual


DefendantJudicial Council a municipal entity


DefendantAdministrative Office of the Courts a municipal entity


DefendantTani G. Cantilsakauye an individual


DefendantCommission on Judicial Performance a municipal entity

represented by Richard F Wolfe Office of the Attorney General 110 West A Street Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 (619)645-2482 Fax: (619)645-2012 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Lawrenece J. Simi an individual

represented by Richard F Wolfe (See above for address)


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantBrad Batson an individual

represented by Richard F Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantNational Family Justice CenterAlliance a California Corporation

represented by Charles R Grebing Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP600 West Broadway Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101-3370 (619)232-8151 Fax: (619)232-4665 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dwayne H Stein Wingert Grebing Brubaker and JuskieLLP One America Plaza 600 West Broadway Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92103 (619) 232-8151 Fax: (619) 232-4665 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantLisa Schall an individual


DefendantLorna Alksne an individual


DefendantOff Duty Officers, Inc. a business entity of unknown form

represented by Bruno William Katz Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &Dicker, LLP


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


655 West Broadway Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 321-6200 Fax: (619) 321-6201 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelly Aileen Van Nort Wilson Elser 655 West Broadway Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 321-6200 Fax: (619) 321-6201 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantChristine Goldsmith an individual


DefendantJeannie Lowe an individual


DefendantWilliam Mcadam an individual


DefendantEdlene Mckenzie an individual


DefendantJoel Wohlfeil an idividual



10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


DefendantCarole Baldwin an individual

represented by Timothy R. Pestotnik Pestotnik & Gold, LLP 501 West Broadway Suite 1025 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 237-5080 Fax: (619) 342-8020 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantLaury Baldwin an individual

represented by Timothy R. Pestotnik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantBaldwin and Baldwin a California professional corporation


DefendantLarry Corrigan an individual

represented by Rachael H. Mills Offices of James R. Rogers 125 South Highway 101 Suite 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075 858-792-9900 Fax: 858-792-9509 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantWilliam Hargraeves an individual


DefendantHargraeves & Taylor, PC a California Professional Corporation


Defendant


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Terry Chucas an individual

represented by Gina Elizabeth Och Murchison and Cumming LLP 801 South Grand Avenue Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4624 (213)623-7400 Fax: (213)623-6336 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth H Moreno Murchison and Cumming 750 B Street Suite 2550 San Diego, CA 92101-8122 (619)544-6838 Fax: (619)544-1568 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantMeridith Levin an individual


DefendantAllen Slattery, Inc. a California Corporation, a Corporation


DefendantJanis Stocks an individual


DefendantStocks & Colburn a California professional corporation


DefendantDr. Stephen Doyne an individual

represented by Christopher J Zopatti Callahan McCune and Willis 2601 Main Street


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Tustin, CA 92614 (949)261-2872 Fax: (949)261-6060 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joan E Trimble Callahan, Thompson, Sherman &Caudill, LLP 2601 Main Street Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92614 (949)261-2872 Fax: (949)261-6060 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantDr. Stephen Doyne, Inc. a professional corporation

represented by Christopher J Zopatti (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joan E Trimble (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantSusan Griffin an individual

represented by Gina Elizabeth Och (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth H Moreno (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantDr. Lori Love an individual

represented by Rachael H. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantLove and Alvarez Psychology, Inc. a California corporatino

represented by Rachael H. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantRobert A. Simon, PH.D. an individual

represented by Brian A Rawers Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith 550 West C Street Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-3531 (619)233-1006 Fax: (619)233-8627 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantAmerican College of ForensicExaminers Institute a business entity of unknown form

represented by Gregory P Goonan The Affinity Law Group APC 5755 Oberlin Drive Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92121 (858) 750-1615 Fax: (619) 243-0088 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas J. Schafbuch Center for National Threat Assessment 2750 East Sunshine Street Springfield, MO 65807 (417) 881-2533 Fax: (417) 881-4702 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantSharon Blanchet an individual

represented by Charles R Grebing (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dwayne H Stein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, &Kalemenkarian a California Professional Corporation



DefendantMarilyn Bierer an individual

represented by Daniel S. Agle Klienedinst PC 501 West Broadway Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92101-3584 (619)239-8131 Fax: (619)238-8707 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantBierer and Associates a California Profesional Corporation

represented by Daniel S. Agle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantJeffrey Fritz an individual

represented by Kyle M Van Dyke Hurst & Hurst 701 B Street Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 236-0016 Fax: (619) 236-8569 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantBasie and Fritz a professional corporation

represented by Kyle M Van Dyke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantRobert O'Block an individual

represented by Gregory P Goonan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas J. Schafbuch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantLori Clark Viviano an individual



DefendantLaw Offices of Lori Clark Viviano a business entity of unknown form



DefendantSteven Jahr an idividual


DefendantMichael Groch an individual


DefendantEmily Garson an individual

DefendantJan Goldsmith an individual


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


DefendantSan Diego, City of a municiple entity

represented by Rayna A. Stephan Office of The San Diego City Attorney 1200 Third Avenue Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 (619)533-5800 Fax: (619)533-5856 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantChubb Group of Insurance Companiesa corporation

represented by Christine M La Pinta Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek 750 B Street 2100 Symphony Towers San Diego, CA 92101-8177 (619)685-3003 Fax: (619)702-6850 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DefendantKristine Nesthus an individual


DefendantBrian Watkins an individual

DefendantKen Smith an individual

DefendantMarilou Marcq an individual

DefendantCSB-Investigations an entity of unknown form

Date Filed # Docket Text


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


08/20/2013 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Administrative Office of the Courts,Lorna Alksne, Allen Slattery, Inc., American College of Forensic ExaminersInstitute, Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian, Carole Baldwin,Laury Baldwin, Baldwin and Baldwin, Basie and Fritz, Brad Batson, MarilynBierer, Bierer and Associates, Sharon Blanchet, Tani G. Cantilsakauye, TerryChucas, Lori Clark Viviano, Commission on Judicial Performance, LarryCorrigan, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc., Jeffrey Fritz, ChristineGoldsmith, William D. Gore, Susan Griffin, William Hargraeves, Hargraeves &Taylor, PC, Judicial Council, Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano, Meridith Levin,Dr. Lori Love, Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc., Jeannie Lowe, WilliamMcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, National Family Justice Center Alliance, RobertO'Block, Off Duty Officers, Inc., Michael Roddy, San Diego County BarAssociation, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San Diego, County of, LisaSchall, Lawrenece J. Simi, Robert A. Simon, PH.D., Janis Stocks, Stocks &Colburn, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, JoelWohlfeil (filing fee $400 receipt number CAS054091), filed by Lexevia, PC,California Coalition for Families and Children., Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments:# 1 Complaint Part 2, # 2 Exhibit 1 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit 1 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit 1 Part3, # 5 Exhibit 1 Part 4, # 6 Exhibit 1 Part 5, # 7 Exhibit 1 Part 6, # 8 Exhibit 1 Part7, # 9 Exhibit 1 Part 8, # 10 Exhibit 1 Part 9, # 11 Exhibit 1 Part 10, # 12 Exhibit 1Part 11, # 13 Exhibit 2, # 14 Exhibit 3, # 15 Exhibit 4 - 35, # 16 Exhibit 36 - 37Part 1, # 17 Exhibit 37 Part 2, # 18 Exhibit 37 Part 3, # 19 Exhibit 37 Part 4, # 20Exhibit 44, # 21 Civil Case Cover Sheet).

The new case number is 3:13-cv-1944-DMS-BLM. Judge Dana M. Sabraw andMagistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major are assigned to the case. (Stuart, ColbernC.)(dls) (cap). (sxr-v). (Entered: 08/21/2013)

08/20/2013 2 Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons andserve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. Summons hasbeen provided to plaintiffs not receiving notice electronically. (dls) (cap).(Entered: 08/21/2013)

08/21/2013 3 Minute Order: Judge Dana M. Sabraw recuses from this case and requests anotherjudge be drawn and assigned. Judge Thomas J. Whelan added to the case. JudgeDana M. Sabraw is no longer assigned to case and Judge Thomas J. Whelan isnow assigned to the case. The new case number is 13-CV-1944-W-BLM. (nodocument attached) (kcm) (cap). (Entered: 08/21/2013)

08/22/2013 Minute Order: Judge Thomas J. Whelan recuses from this case and requestsanother judge be drawn and assigned. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo randomlyassigned to the case. The new case number is 13CV01944-CAB-BLM. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no document attached) (dls)(Entered: 08/22/2013)

08/26/2013 4 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for HarassmentRestraining Order by Colbern C. Stuart. (yeb) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

08/26/2013 5 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs complaint [Doc. No. 1 ] contains confidentialinformation. Accordingly, the clerk of court is directed to seal plaintiffscomplaint.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered:


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


08/26/2013)

09/09/2013 6 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Utilize the Electronic Court FilingSystem by Colbern C. Stuart. (yeb) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

09/10/2013 7 Notice of Document Discrepancies by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo AcceptingDocument: Redacted Verified Complaint from Colbern C. Stuart. Non-compliancewith local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 7.1: Missing table of contents, OTHER: Missingproof of service. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The document is to be filed nuncpro tunc to date received. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 09/9/2013.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered:09/11/2013)

09/10/2013 8 REDACTED Verified Complaint 1 by Colbern C. Stuart. Nunc pro tunc08/30/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb)Modified on 9/12/2013 (sealed per DWG from CAB Chamber) (kcm). Modifiedon 9/13/2013 to edit text (leh). (sxr-v). (Entered: 09/11/2013)

09/12/2013 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Christine Goldsmith, LisaSchall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeilserved. (yeb) (Entered: 09/13/2013)

09/12/2013 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Colbern C. Stuart re 4 MOTION for Leave toFile for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Harassment Restraining Order(yeb) (Entered: 09/13/2013)

09/13/2013 9 MINUTE ORDER: The court directs the Clerk of Court to seal plaintiffs redactedcomplaint. [Doc. No. 8 .](All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered: 09/13/2013)

09/17/2013 12 ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion for Leave to File supplement motion forharassment restraining order; and granting 6 Ex Parte Application for leave to filedocuments electronically. The Court instructs plaintiff to contact the Clerk ofCourt for further instructions. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on9/16/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered:09/17/2013)

09/20/2013 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Colbern C. Stuart (yeb) (Entered: 09/24/2013)

09/20/2013 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Jeannie Lowe, WilliamMcadam, Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County,Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil served. (yeb) (Entered: 09/24/2013)

09/26/2013 15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by William Mcadam, Joel Wohlfeil, JeannieLowe, Michael Roddy, Christine Goldsmith, Robert J. Trentacostsa, SuperiorCourt of San Diego County, Lorna Alksne. William Mcadam, Joel Wohlfeil,Jeannie Lowe, Michael Roddy, Christine Goldsmith, Robert J. Trentacostsa,Superior Court of San Diego County, Lorna Alksne served. (Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 09/26/2013)

09/30/2013 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Lorna Alksne, ChristineGoldsmith, Jeannie Lowe, William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Michael Roddy,Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, JoelWohlfeil. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request forJudicial Notice, # 3 Declaration of Kristine P. Nesthus)(Green, Matthew)Attorney


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Matthew L Green added to party Lorna Alksne(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew LGreen added to party Christine Goldsmith(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Greenadded to party Jeannie Lowe(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to partyWilliam Mcadam(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party EdleneMckenzie(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party MichaelRoddy(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Lisa Schall(pty:dft),Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Superior Court of San DiegoCounty(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Robert J.Trentacostsa(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party JoelWohlfeil(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 09/30/2013)

10/31/2013 17 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1Declaration Stuart Declaration and Exhibits ISO Ex Parte Applicaiton)(Stuart,Colbern)Attorney Colbern C Stuart, III added to party Colbern C. Stuart(pty:pla)(yeb). (Entered: 10/31/2013)

11/05/2013 18 ORDER granting 17 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffsmay file a response brief limited to thirty-five (35) pages in length. Defendants areallowed twenty (20) pages for their reply. Signed by Judge Cathy AnnBencivengo on 11/5/2013. (yeb) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

11/07/2013 19 MOTION to Strike Matter In Support of Motion To Dismiss Complaint byColbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities)(Stuart,Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/08/2013 20 ORDER Continuing Hearing on Defendants 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failureto State a Claim . Motion Hearing continued to12/19/2013 03:30 PM before JudgeCathy Ann Bencivengo. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 11/8/2013.(yeb) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013 21 RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Strike Matter In Support of MotionTo Dismiss Complaint, 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filedby Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb).(Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/14/2013 22 MOTION to Dismiss by Brad Batson, Commission on Judicial Performance,Lawrenece J. Simi. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Supportof Motion to Dismiss by Defendants, # 2 Proof of Service)(Wolfe,Richard)Attorney Richard F Wolfe added to party Brad Batson(pty:dft), AttorneyRichard F Wolfe added to party Commission on Judicial Performance(pty:dft),Attorney Richard F Wolfe added to party Lawrenece J. Simi(pty:dft)(yeb).(Entered: 11/14/2013)

11/14/2013 23 MOTION for Sanctions by Superior Court of San Diego County. (Attachments: #1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Request for JudicialNotice)(Green, Matthew)(yeb). (Entered: 11/14/2013)

11/21/2013 24 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Meridith Levin served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 25 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Hargraeves & Taylor, PCserved. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 26 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. National Family Justice


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Center Alliance served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 27 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Judicial Council served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 28 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Basie and Fritz served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 29 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Bierer and Associatesserved. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 30 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Marilyn Bierer served.(Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 31 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Ashworth, Blanchet,Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered:11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 32 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Law Offices of Lori ClarkViviano served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 33 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Lori Clark Viviano served.(Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 34 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Stocks & Colburn served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 35 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Janis Stocks served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 36 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Allen Slattery, Inc. served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 37 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Meridith Levin served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013 38 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Hargraeves & Taylor, PCserved. (Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/26/2013 39 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants the San Diego County SuperiorCourt, Robert J. Trentacosta, Michael M. Roddy, Lisa Schall, Lorna A. Alksne,Christine K. Goldsmith, Jeannie Lowe, William H. McAdam, Jr., Edlene C.McKenzie, and Joel R. Wohlfeil by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Memo ofPoints and Authorities ISO Motion for Sanctions, # 2 Declaration ISO Motion forSanctions)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/26/2013)

11/27/2013 40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1Complaint,,,,,,, by Allen Slattery, Inc., Carole Baldwin, Laury Baldwin, Baldwinand Baldwin, William Hargraeves, Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, Meridith Levin,Janis Stocks, Stocks & Colburn. (Pestotnik, Timothy)Attorney Timothy R.Pestotnik added to party Allen Slattery, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R.Pestotnik added to party Carole Baldwin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnikadded to party Laury Baldwin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added toparty Baldwin and Baldwin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added toparty William Hargraeves(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to party


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Hargraeves & Taylor, PC(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to partyMeridith Levin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to party JanisStocks(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to party Stocks &Colburn(pty:dft) (sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)

11/27/2013 41 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Love and AlvarezPsychology, Inc. served. (Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong DistrictJudge listed) (sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)

11/27/2013 42 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. San Diego, County ofserved. (Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District Judge listed) (sjt).(Entered: 11/27/2013)

11/27/2013 43 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Dr. Lori Love served.(Stuart, Colbern)(sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)

11/27/2013 44 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. San Diego County Sheriff'sDepartment served. (Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District Judgelisted) (sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)

11/27/2013 45 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. San Diego County BarAssociation served. (Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District Judgelisted)(sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)

11/27/2013 46 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Jeffrey Fritz served.(Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District Judge listed)(sjt). (Entered:11/27/2013)

12/02/2013 47 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Joint Motion for Extension ofTime to File Responsive Pleadings. The moving defendants shall respond to thecomplaint no later than January 2, 2014, unless otherwise ordered by the court.Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 12/2/2013. (yeb) (Entered:12/02/2013)

12/02/2013 48 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Basie and Fritz. (Attachments: # 1 Memo ofPoints and Authorities in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of Kyle Van Dyke, #3 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, #6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 15, # 19 Exhibit 16, # 20 Exhibit 17, #21 Exhibit 18, # 22 Exhibit 19, # 23 Exhibit 20)(Van Dyke, Kyle)Attorney KyleM Van Dyke added to party Basie and Fritz(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/02/2013)

12/03/2013 49 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Marilyn Bierer, Bierer andAssociates. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request forJudicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Proofof Service)(Agle, Daniel)Attorney Daniel S. Agle added to party MarilynBierer(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel S. Agle added to party Bierer andAssociates(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/03/2013 50 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Jeffrey Fritz. (Attachments: # 1 Memo ofPoints and Authorities in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of Kyle Van Dyke, #3 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, #


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 15, # 19 Exhibit 16, # 20 Exhibit 17, #21 Exhibit 18, # 22 Exhibit 19, # 23 Exhibit 20)(Van Dyke, Kyle)Attorney KyleM Van Dyke added to party Jeffrey Fritz(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/03/2013 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Judicial Council.(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for JudicialNotice)(Green, Matthew)Attorney Matthew L Green added to party JudicialCouncil(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/03/2013 52 MOTION to Dismiss by National Family Justice Center Alliance. (Attachments: #1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Proof ofService)(Grebing, Charles)Attorney Charles R Grebing added to party NationalFamily Justice Center Alliance(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/03/2013 53 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, &Kalemenkarian, Sharon Blanchet. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points andAuthorities iso Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, # 2 Request for JudicialNotice iso Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, # 3 Proof of Service)(Grebing,Charles)Attorney Charles R Grebing added to party Ashworth, Blanchet,Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian(pty:dft), Attorney Charles R Grebing added to partySharon Blanchet(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)

12/04/2013 54 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintifs' Complaint by Lori Clark Viviano, Law Offices ofLori Clark Viviano. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles)AttorneyCharles R Grebing added to party Lori Clark Viviano(pty:dft), Attorney Charles RGrebing added to party Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano(pty:dft) (yeb).(Entered: 12/04/2013)

12/05/2013 55 RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Strike Matter In Support of MotionTo Dismiss Complaint filed by Lorna Alksne, Christine Goldsmith, Jeannie Lowe,William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Courtof San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil. (Green, Matthew).(jah). (Entered: 12/05/2013)

12/05/2013 56 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Colbern C.Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Stuart, Colbern) (ag). (Entered:12/05/2013)

12/05/2013 57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Colbern C. Stuart.(Stuart, Colbern) (ag). (Entered: 12/05/2013)

12/06/2013 58 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Dismiss (Supplemental toDeclaration of Colbern C. Stuart filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart, Colbern)(dlg). (Entered: 12/06/2013)

12/09/2013 59 NOTICE of Appearance by Dwayne Hoover Stein on behalf of National FamilyJustice Center Alliance (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stein,Dwayne)Attorney Dwayne Hoover Stein added to party National Family JusticeCenter Alliance(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/09/2013 60 NOTICE of Appearance by Dwayne Hoover Stein on behalf of Lori Clark


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Viviano, Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stein, Dwayne)Attorney Dwayne Hoover Stein added to party Lori ClarkViviano(pty:dft), Attorney Dwayne Hoover Stein added to party Law Offices ofLori Clark Viviano(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/09/2013 61 NOTICE of Appearance by Dwayne Hoover Stein on behalf of Ashworth,Blanchet, Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian, Sharon Blanchet (Attachments: # 1 Proofof Service)(Stein, Dwayne)Attorney Dwayne Hoover Stein added to partyAshworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian(pty:dft), Attorney DwayneHoover Stein added to party Sharon Blanchet(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/09/2013 62 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion toDismiss Complaint by William D. Gore, San Diego, County of. (Attachments: # 1Memo of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint, # 2Proof of Service)(Sanchez, Ricky)Attorney Ricky R Sanchez added to partyWilliam D. Gore(pty:dft), Attorney Ricky R Sanchez added to party San Diego,County of(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/10/2013 63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by William D. Gore, San Diego, County of re 62MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion toDismiss Complaint Amended Proof of Service (Sanchez, Ricky) (dlg). (Entered:12/10/2013)

12/10/2013 64 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint by RobertA. Simon, PH.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Rawers, Brian)AttorneyBrian A Rawers added to party Robert A. Simon, PH.D.(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered:12/10/2013)

12/11/2013 65 NOTICE by National Family Justice Center Alliance re 52 MOTION to Dismiss -Notice of Errata (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb).(Entered: 12/11/2013)

12/11/2013 66 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Brad Batson,Commission on Judicial Performance, Lawrenece J. Simi. (Attachments: # 1 Proofof Service)(Wolfe, Richard) (yeb). (Entered: 12/11/2013)

12/11/2013 67 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , MOTION to Dismiss for Lackof Jurisdiction , MOTION to Dismiss by Dr. Stephen Doyne, Dr. Stephen Doyne,Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for JudicialNotice)(Trimble, Joan)Attorney Joan E Trimble added to party Dr. StephenDoyne(pty:dft), Attorney Joan E Trimble added to party Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/11/2013)

12/12/2013 68 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher J Zopatti on behalf of Dr. Stephen Doyne,Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc. (Zopatti, Christopher)Attorney Christopher J Zopattiadded to party Dr. Stephen Doyne(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher J Zopatti addedto party Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/12/2013 69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 MOTION for Sanctions filed by SuperiorCourt of San Diego County. (Green, Matthew) (yeb). (Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/12/2013 70 RESPONSE to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimfiled by Lorna Alksne, Christine Goldsmith, Jeannie Lowe, William Mcadam,Edlene Mckenzie, Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


County, Robert J. Trentacostsa. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial NoticeSupplemental, # 2 Objections to Dec. of Stuart)(Green, Matthew)(yeb). (Entered:12/12/2013)

12/12/2013 71 RESPONSE in Opposition re 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim(Plaintiff's OBJECTION to Late-Filed Reply) filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart,Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/12/2013 72 REPLY to Response to Motion re 19 MOTION to Strike Matter In Support ofMotion To Dismiss Complaint filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1Declaration Declaration of Colbern C. Stuart ISO Reply To Motion to StrikeMatter in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered:12/12/2013)

12/12/2013 73 MOTION to Dismiss by Terry Chucas, Susan Griffin. (Attachments: # 1 Memo ofPoints and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Proofof Service)(Och, Gina)Attorney Gina Elizabeth Och added to party TerryChucas(pty:dft), Attorney Gina Elizabeth Och added to party SusanGriffin(pty:dft) Modified on 12/13/2013 to remove non-filers per doc. no. 74(yeb). (Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/12/2013 74 NOTICE by Terry Chucas re 73 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Terry Chucas andSusan Griffin at Docket No. 73 incorrectly reflects the filing parties. Motion toDismiss filed by Terry Chucas and Susan Griffin, only. (Och, Gina) (yeb).(Entered: 12/12/2013)

12/13/2013 75 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer , Joint MOTION for Extension ofTime to File Response/Reply by San Diego County Bar Association. (Lucas,Stephen)Attorney Stephen D Lucas added to party San Diego County BarAssociation(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/13/2013)

12/16/2013 76 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth H Moreno on behalf of Terry Chucas, SusanGriffin (Moreno, Kenneth)Attorney Kenneth H Moreno added to party TerryChucas(pty:dft), Attorney Kenneth H Moreno added to party SusanGriffin(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/16/2013)

12/17/2013 77 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Administrative Office ofthe Courts served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 12/17/2013)

12/17/2013 78 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Tani G. Cantilsakauyeserved. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 12/17/2013)

12/17/2013 79 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Larry Corrigan served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 12/17/2013)

12/17/2013 80 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Robert O'Block served.(Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 12/17/2013)

12/17/2013 81 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. American College ofForensic Examiners Institute served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered:12/17/2013)

12/17/2013 82 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Sharon Blanchet served.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 12/17/2013)


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


12/18/2013 83 MINUTE ORDER: The hearing on pending motions at docket numbers 16 , 19 ,22 , and 23 , scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.,is rescheduled to December 19, 2013 at 2:00 p.m..(yeb) (Entered: 12/18/2013)

12/18/2013 84 ORDER granting 64 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Robert A. Simon,PH.D. answer due 1/6/2014. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on12/18/2013. (yeb) (Entered: 12/18/2013)

12/19/2013 85 NOTICE of Appearance by Gregory P Goonan on behalf of American College ofForensic Examiners Institute, Robert O'Block (Goonan, Gregory)AttorneyGregory P Goonan added to party American College of Forensic ExaminersInstitute(pty:dft), Attorney Gregory P Goonan added to party RobertO'Block(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 12/19/2013)

12/19/2013 86 Minute Order for proceedings held before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo: MotionHearing held 12/19/2013. Court grants defense 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failureto State a Claim; denies Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Strike; grants defense 22 Motionto Dismiss; and denies defense 23 Motion for Sanctions.The court dismisses theComplaint in its entirety without prejudice. An Amended Complaint is to be filedwith the court within 20 days of today's date. Plaintiff's oral motion under Rule 54is denied. Court to issue further written Order for the parties. Because thecomplaint is dismissed, all other pending motions filed with the court are deemedwithdrawn and the Motion Hearing currently set for 1/24/2014 02:00 PM ishereby vacated. (Court Reporter/ECR Mauralee Ramirez). (Plaintiff AttorneyColbern Stuart).(Defendant Attorney Matthew L. Green and Richard Wolfe). (nodocument attached) (lmh) (Entered: 12/19/2013)

12/20/2013 87 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachael H. Mills on behalf of Larry Corrigan, Dr.Lori Love, Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc. (Mills, Rachael)Attorney RachaelH. Mills added to party Larry Corrigan(pty:dft), Attorney Rachael H. Mills addedto party Dr. Lori Love(pty:dft), Attorney Rachael H. Mills added to party Loveand Alvarez Psychology, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/20/2013)

12/23/2013 88 ORDER on Motions to Dismiss [Doc. No. 16 ] and Motions for Sanctions [Doc.No. 23 ]. It is so ordered the motions to dismiss of the Superior Court andCommission on Judicial Performance defendants [Doc. Nos. 16 , 22 ] are grantedin part and denied in part. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. PlaintiffStuart has leave to file an amended complaint no later than Thursday, January 9,2014. The court denies plaintiffs motion to strike and the Superior Courts motionfor sanctions. [Doc. Nos. 19 , 23 .] Finally, the court deems withdrawn theremaining motions to dismiss. [Doc. Nos. 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 62 , 67 ,73 .] Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 12/23/2013.(yeb) (Entered:12/23/2013)

12/24/2013 89 PRO HAC VICE APPOINTED: Thomas Schafbuch appearing for DefendantsAmerican College of Forensic Examiners Institute, Robert O'Block, Receipt #53207. (ag) (Entered: 12/24/2013)

01/09/2014 90 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants,filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix, # 11 Appendix, # 12 Appendix, # 13Appendix)New Summons Requested. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered:


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


01/09/2014)

01/10/2014 91 First Amended Complaint Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons andserve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (yeb) (Entered:01/10/2014)

01/10/2014 92 ORDER SCHEDULING Case Management Conference for 2/26/2014 02:00 PMin Courtroom 4C before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. No defendant shall answeror otherwiserespond to the first amended complaint until further order from thecourt. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 01/10/2014.(yeb) (Entered:01/10/2014)

01/14/2014 93 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew L Green on behalf of Administrative Officeof the Courts, Tani G. Cantilsakauye (Green, Matthew)Attorney Matthew L Greenadded to party Administrative Office of the Courts(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew LGreen added to party Tani G. Cantilsakauye(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/21/2014 94 PRO HAC VICE APPOINTED: Dean Browning Webb appearing for PlaintiffCalifornia Coalition for Families and Children., Receipt # 58716. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jao) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

02/21/2014 95 MINUTE ORDER: A case management conference is scheduled in this case forWednesday, February 26, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4C, before JudgeBencivengo. [See Doc. No. 92 .] Plaintiff Colbern C. Stuart and Dean BrowningWebb, counsel for plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children, mustappear in person. Local counsel Eric W. Ching is excused. Local counsel for anydefendant must appear in person. Any additional counsel for a particulardefendant may request to appear telephonically by contacting chambers. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered: 02/21/2014)

02/21/2014 97 MOTION to File Document Under Seal by California Coalition for Families andChildren.. (Ching, Eric) Modified to Correct Event on 2/24/2014 (sjt). (Entered:02/21/2014)

02/24/2014 98 ORDER granting 97 Motion to Seal Documents. Any opposition to Mr. Chingsmotion must be filed on or before March 5, 2014. Mr. Ching shall file his reply, ifany, on or before March 12, 2014. Upon completion of the briefing, the Court willtake the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and nopersonal appearances will be required. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara LynnMajor on 2/24/2014. (sjt) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/24/2014 99 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Granted by ORDER 98 ) (Ching, Eric)(sjt). (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/24/2014 100 (Filed as Sealed Document 101 ) SEALED LODGED Proposed Document re: 99MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motionto Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Ching, Eric) (Main Document 100 replacedon 2/24/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of lodgement on 2/24/2014 (sjt).(Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/26/2014 102 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by California Coalition for Families andChildren.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration)(Stuart, Colbern)Attorney Colbern C Stuart, III added to party California Coalition


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


for Families and Children.(pty:pla) (yeb). (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/26/2014 103 DECLARATION re 102 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Parts 1-8 byPlaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children.. (Attachments: # 1Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/26/2014 104 DECLARATION re 103 Declaration, Parts 9-18 by Plaintiff California Coalitionfor Families and Children.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 10, # 2 Exhibit Part 11,# 3 Exhibit Part 12, # 4 Exhibit Part 13, # 5 Exhibit Part 14, # 6 Exhibit Part 15, #7 Exhibit Part 16, # 8 Exhibit Part 17, # 9 Exhibit Part 18)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb).(Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/26/2014 105 DECLARATION re 104 Declaration, Parts 19-24 by Plaintiff California Coalitionfor Families and Children.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 20, # 2 Exhibit Part 21,# 3 Exhibit Part 22, # 4 Exhibit Part 23, # 5 Exhibit Part 24)(Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/26/2014 106 ORDER rejecting 102 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge CathyAnn Bencivengo on 02/26/2014. (yeb) (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/26/2014 107 ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on02/26/2014.(yeb) (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/26/2014 108 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo: CaseManagement Conference held on 2/26/2014. Omnibus briefing schedule is set bythe court. Further written order will follow. Pro se plaintiff requested the court toaddress 39 Motion for Sanctions against defendants filed by plaintiff ColbernStuart. The motion is denied NUNC PRO TUNC to 12/19/2013. A motion hearingwas held on December 19, 2013 and at that hearing the court dismissed thecomplaint in its entirety. As such, all pending motions were deemed withdrawn bythe court (see docket entry 86 ).(Court Reporter/ECR Mauralee Ramirez).(Plaintiff Attorney Dean Webb and Colbern Stuart (pro se)). (Defendant AttorneyStephen Lucas, Daniel Agle, Gregory Goonan, Charles Grebing, Matthew Green,Rachael Mills, Lynn Feldner, Katherine Weadock, Timothy Pestotnik, RickySanchez, Thomas Schafbuch (telephonic appearance), Kyle Van Dyke, RichardWolfe, Mike Nardi, Steve Doyne and Charles Taylor). (no document attached)(lmh) (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/28/2014 109 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Domestic Violence RestrainingOrders: First Amend. by California Coalition for Families and Children..(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3 ExhibitPart 1 (Inc. Decl.), # 4 Exhibit Part 2, # 5 Exhibit Part 3, # 6 Exhibit Part 4, # 7Exhibit Part 5, # 8 Exhibit Part 6, # 9 Exhibit Part 7, # 10 Exhibit Part 8, # 11Exhibit Part 9, # 12 Exhibit Part 10, # 13 Exhibit Part 11, # 14 Exhibit Part 12, #15 Exhibit Part 13, # 16 Exhibit Part 14, # 17 Exhibit Part 15, # 18 Exhibit Part16, # 19 Exhibit Part 17, # 20 Exhibit Part 18, # 21 Exhibit Part 19, # 22 ExhibitPart 20, # 23 Exhibit Part 21, # 24 Exhibit Part 22, # 25 Exhibit Part 23, # 26Exhibit Part 24)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 02/28/2014)

03/04/2014 110 MINUTE ORDER: On February 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion forpreliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 109 .] In light of the current scheduling orderregarding the Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs first amended complaint,


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


[Doc. No. 105 ] the Court sets the following briefing schedule for plaintiffsmotion for preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 109 ]: Responsive briefs will be filedno later than June 13, 2014; Plaintiffs may file a reply brief no later than June 20,2014. The hearing on Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 109 ],currently set for April 22, 2014, is hereby continued to June 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.in Courtroom 4C.(yeb) (Entered: 03/04/2014)

03/05/2014 111 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Stuart, Colbern) (sjt). (Entered:03/05/2014)

03/05/2014 112 (Filed as Sealed Document 114 on 3/6/2014) SEALED LODGED ProposedDocument re: 111 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filedby Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Stuart, Colbern)(sjt).(Main Document 112 replaced on 3/6/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date oflodgement on 3/6/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/05/2014)

03/06/2014 113 ORDER granting 111 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Mr. Ching shall filehis reply, if any, on or before March 12, 2014. Upon completion of the briefing,the Court will take the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule7.1(d)(1) and no personal appearances will be required. Signed by MagistrateJudge Barbara Lynn Major on 3/6/2014. (sjt) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/11/2014 115 Notice of Document Discrepancies by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo RejectingDocument: Letter. Non-compliance with local rule(s), OTHER: Ex partecommunication to judge prohibited (Local Rule 83.9). Filer is not a party on thematter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The document is NOT to be filed, but insteadREJECTED and it is ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on allparties. Any further failure to comply with the Local Rules may lead to penaltiespursuant to Local Rule 83.1., Rejected document was returned to the filer(cge)(Entered: 03/11/2014)

03/12/2014 116 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Ching, Eric) (sjt). (Entered: 03/12/2014)

03/12/2014 117 (Filed as Sealed Document 119 on 3/14/2014) SEALED LODGED ProposedDocument re: 116 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filedby Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (Ching, Eric) (sjt). (Main Document 117replaced on 3/14/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of lodgement on3/14/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/12/2014)

03/14/2014 118 ORDER granting 116 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed byMagistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 3/14/2014. (sjt) (Entered: 03/14/2014)

03/14/2014 120 ORDER denying without Prejudice 101 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney ofRecord. If Mr. Ching wants the Court to consider his motion to withdraw asattorney of record, Mr. Ching must re-file the motion, serve a copy of the motionand declaration in support thereof on his client Mr. Stuart (as President CCFC,PBC) and Mr. Dean Browning Webb on or before March 18, 2014, and file therequired declaration of service on or before March 20, 2014. Once the motion hasbeen served, CCFC may supplement its opposition on or before March 25, 2014.Upon completion of the briefing, the Court will take the matter under submissionpursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and no personal appearances will berequired. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 3/14/2014. (sjt)(Entered: 03/14/2014)


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


03/17/2014 121 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Ching, Eric) (sjt). (Entered: 03/17/2014)

03/17/2014 122 (Filed as Sealed Document 124 ) SEALED LODGED Proposed Document re: 121MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motionto Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Ching, Eric) (sjt). (Main Document 122replaced on 3/18/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of lodgement on3/18/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/17/2014)


03/25/2014 125 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on2/26/2014, before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Court Reporter/Transcriber:Mauralee A. Ramirez. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal orpurchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Releaseof Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER orthe Court Reporter/Transcriber. If redaction is necessary, parties have sevencalendar days from the file date of the Transcript to E-File the Notice of Intent toRequest Redaction. The following deadlines would also apply if requestingredaction: Redaction Request Statement due to Court Reporter/Transcriber4/15/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/25/2014. Release of TranscriptRestriction set for 6/23/2014. (akr). (Main Document 125 replaced on 3/28/2014with transcript with corrected date on the cover page. Corrected copy provided byCourt Reporter. Modified docket text to indicate the correct hearing date. NEFregenerated.) (akr). (Entered: 03/25/2014)

03/25/2014 126 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Stuart, Colbern)(QC mailer sent re:signature does not match filer) (sjt). (Entered: 03/25/2014)

03/25/2014 127 (Filed as Sealed Document 129 on 3/25/2014) SEALED LODGED ProposedDocument re: 126 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filedby Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (Stuart, Colbern) (sjt). Modified to addfiling date of lodgement on 3/26/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/25/2014)


03/27/2014 130 NOTICE of Appearance by Rayna A. Stephan on behalf of San Diego, City of(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stephan, Rayna)Attorney Rayna A. Stephanadded to party San Diego, City of(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 03/27/2014)

03/28/2014 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion[FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) by San Diego County Bar Association.(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants'Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FAC, # 2 Declaration of Stephen D. Lucas in Supportof Defendants' Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FAC, # 3 Request for Judicial Noticein Support of Defendants' Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FAC)(Lucas, Stephen)(yeb). (Entered: 03/28/2014)

04/02/2014 132 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Colbern C. Stuart on Off Duty Officers, Inc.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 04/02/2014)

04/09/2014 134 NOTICE of Joinder by Brad Batson, Lawrenece J. Simi And Supplement ToOmnibus Motion To Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proof of


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Service)(Wolfe, Richard) (yeb). (Entered: 04/09/2014)

04/10/2014 135 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Marilyn Bierer, Bierer andAssociates. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request forJudicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Proof of Service)(Agle, Daniel)(yeb). (Entered:04/10/2014)

04/10/2014 136 NOTICE of Appearance by Christine M La Pinta on behalf of Chubb Group ofInsurance Companies (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(La Pinta,Christine)Attorney Christine M La Pinta added to party Chubb Group ofInsurance Companies(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/10/2014 137 NOTICE of Joinder by American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, RobertO'Block (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service Proof of Service)(Schafbuch,Thomas) (yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/10/2014 138 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by Basie and Fritz,Jeffrey Fritz. (Van Dyke, Kyle)(yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/10/2014 139 Supplemental MOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FirstAmended Complaint by Administrative Office of the Courts, Lorna Alksne, TaniG. Cantilsakauye, Christine Goldsmith, Michael Groch, Steven Jahr, JudicialCouncil, Jeannie Lowe, William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Kristine Nesthus,Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J.Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil. (Green, Matthew)Attorney Matthew L Green addedto party Michael Groch(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party StevenJahr (pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Kristine Nesthus(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/10/2014 140 NOTICE of Joinder by Administrative Office of the Courts, Lorna Alksne, TaniG. Cantilsakauye, Christine Goldsmith, Michael Groch, Steven Jahr, JudicialCouncil, Jeannie Lowe, William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Kristine Nesthus,Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J.Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b)(Green, Matthew) (yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/10/2014 141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion toDismiss First AMended Complaint Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismissby William D. Gore, San Diego, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Pointsand Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended ComplaintSupplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Notice of Joinder Into OmnibusMotion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, # 3 Proof of Service)(Sanchez, Ricky) (yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/11/2014 142 NOTICE of Joinder by Robert A. Simon, PH.D. re 131 MOTION to Dismiss forFailure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b),12(b), 41(b) (Rawers, Brian) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by Dr. Stephen Doyne. (Attachments: #1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Stephen E. Doyne's Motiont oDismiss Complaint or, in the alternative, for more definite statement, # 2 Requestfor Judicial Notice In Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint, # 3 Exhibit


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Exhibit A to Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B to Request forJudicial Notice, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C to Request for Judicial Notice, # 6 StephenE. Doyne's Joinder to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FIrst Amended Complaint, # 7Proof of Service)(Zopatti, Christopher) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 144 NOTICE of Joinder by Larry Corrigan, Dr. Lori Love, Love and AlvarezPsychology, Inc. re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim --Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) and Supplementto Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proofof Service)(Rogers, James) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 145 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to OmnibusMotion [Docket 131 - 131-3] and Additional Points and Authorities by ChubbGroup of Insurance Companies. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2Proof of Service)(La Pinta, Christine) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 146 NOTICE of Joinder by Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian,Sharon Blanchet re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim --Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) andSupplemental Brief ISO Omnibus Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Requestfor Judicial Notice, # 2 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb). (Entered:04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 147 NOTICE of Joinder by National Family Justice Center Alliance re 131 MOTIONto Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) and Supplemental Brief ISO Omnibus Motion toDismiss (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb). (Entered:04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 148 NOTICE of Joinder by Lori Clark Viviano, Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano re131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' OmnibusMotion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) and Supplemental Brief ISO OmnibusMotion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb).(Entered: 04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 149 NOTICE of Joinder by Allen Slattery, Inc., Carole Baldwin, Laury Baldwin,Baldwin and Baldwin, William Hargraeves, Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, MeridithLevin, Janis Stocks, Stocks & Colburn re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure toState a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b)(Attachments: # 1 Notice of Supplemental Motion and Motion to Dismiss FirstAmended Complaint, # 2 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 3 Certificate ofService)(Pestotnik, Timothy)(yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 150 NOTICE of Joinder and Supplemental Brief by Terry Chucas, Susan Griffin re131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' OmnibusMotion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) with Proof of Service attached hereto(Och, Gina) (yeb). Modified docket to reflect correct event. (Entered: 04/11/2014)

04/11/2014 151 NOTICE of Joinder by Emily Garson, Jan Goldsmith, San Diego, City of re 131MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion[FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) Defendants City of San Diego, Jan Goldsmithand Emily Garson's Joinder and Supplement to Omnibus Motion to DismissPlaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stephan,Rayna) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


04/17/2014 152 NOTICE of Joinder by Off Duty Officers, Inc. re 131 MOTION to Dismiss forFailure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b),12(b), 41(b) (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Van Nort, Kelly)(yeb). (Entered:04/17/2014)

04/18/2014 153 ORDER deeming timely the Notice of Joinder of Defendant Off Duty Officers,Inc. [Doc. No. 152 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 04/18/2014.(yeb) (Entered: 04/18/2014)

04/21/2014 154 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Stuart, Colbern) (sjt). (Entered:04/21/2014)

04/21/2014 155 (Filed as Sealed Document 158 on 5/9/2014) SEALED LODGED ProposedDocument re: 154 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filedby Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Stuart, Colbern) (sjt).(Main Document 155 replaced on 5/9/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date oflodgement on 5/9/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 04/21/2014)

04/23/2014 156 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruno William Katz on behalf of Off Duty Officers,Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Katz, Bruno)Attorney Bruno WilliamKatz added to party Off Duty Officers, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 04/23/2014)

05/09/2014 159 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Aileen Van Nort on behalf of Off DutyOfficers, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Van Nort, Kelly)Attorney KellyAileen Van Nort added to party Off Duty Officers, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered:05/09/2014)

05/13/2014 160 MOTION for Sanctions by Administrative Office of the Courts, Superior Court ofSan Diego County. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2Declaration)(Green, Matthew)(yeb). (Entered: 05/13/2014)

05/16/2014 161 RESPONSE in Opposition re 141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First AMended ComplaintSupplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, 135 MOTION to Dismiss FirstAmended Complaint, 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim --Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139Supplemental MOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FirstAmended Complaint, 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, 138MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, 145 SupplementalMOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to Omnibus Motion [Docket131 - 131-3] and Additional Points and Authorities filed by Colbern C. Stuart.(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 05/16/2014)

05/20/2014 162 REPLY to Response to Motion re 135 MOTION to Dismiss First AmendedComplaint, 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants'Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139 SupplementalMOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint,143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart,Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 05/20/2014)

05/20/2014 163 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Colbern C. Stuart ISO Opposition toOmnibus MTN to Dismiss (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 05/20/2014)


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


05/20/2014 164 Emergency MOTION to Take Deposition from Stephen D. Lucas Prior to Rule26(f) Conference/Prior to Hearing on Omnibus Motion to Dismiss by Colbern C.Stuart. (Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 05/20/2014)

05/21/2014 165 ORDER denying 164 Emergency Motion to Take Early Deposition of Stephen D.Lucas, counsel for defendant San Diego County Bar Association. Signed by JudgeCathy Ann Bencivengo on 05/21/2014. (yeb) (Entered: 05/21/2014)

05/22/2014 166 RESPONSE to Motion re 141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a ClaimNotice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Supplementalto Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, 135 MOTION to Dismiss First AmendedComplaint, 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants'Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139 SupplementalMOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint,143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, 138 MOTION to DismissPlaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, 145 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss forFailure to State a Claim as to Omnibus Motion [Docket 131 - 131-3] andAdditional Points and Authorities Objections and Motion to Strike LucasDeclaration and Omnibus Seciont II filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit)(Stuart, Colbern) (knb). (Entered: 05/22/2014)

05/27/2014 167 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) filedby Larry Corrigan, Dr. Lori Love, Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc.. (Rogers,James) (yeb). (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/29/2014 168 REPLY to Response to Motion re 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaintwith proof of service filed by Dr. Stephen Doyne, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc..(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Zopatti, Christopher)(yeb). (Entered:05/29/2014)

05/30/2014 169 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) filedby Administrative Office of the Courts, Lorna Alksne, Tani G. Cantilsakauye,Christine Goldsmith, Michael Groch, Steven Jahr, Judicial Council, Jeannie Lowe,William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Kristine Nesthus, Michael Roddy, LisaSchall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, JoelWohlfeil. (Green, Matthew)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 170 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) filedby Administrative Office of the Courts, Lorna Alksne, Tani G. Cantilsakauye,Christine Goldsmith, Michael Groch, Steven Jahr, Judicial Council, Jeannie Lowe,William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Kristine Nesthus, Michael Roddy, LisaSchall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, JoelWohlfeil. (Green, Matthew) (yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 171 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) filedby Basie and Fritz, Jeffrey Fritz. (Van Dyke, Kyle)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 172 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) filed


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


by Terry Chucas, Susan Griffin. (Och, Gina) (yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 173 REPLY to Response to Motion re 145 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss forFailure to State a Claim as to Omnibus Motion [Docket 131 - 131-3] andAdditional Points and Authorities filed by Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(La Pinta, Christine)(yeb). (Entered:05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 174 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) filedby Allen Slattery, Inc., Carole Baldwin, Laury Baldwin, Baldwin and Baldwin,William Hargraeves, Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, Meridith Levin, Janis Stocks,Stocks & Colburn. (Pestotnik, Timothy)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 175 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b)Defendants Lori Clark Viviano and Law Offices of Lori Clark Vivianos Reply toPlaintiffs Opposition to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First AmendedComplaint filed by Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano. (Attachments: # 1 Proof ofService)(Grebing, Charles)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 176 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b)DEFENDANT NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCES REPLY TOPLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFSFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by National Family Justice CenterAlliance. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb). (Entered:05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 177 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b)Defendants Sharon Blanchet and Ashworth, Blanchet, Christensen &Kalemkiarians Reply to Opposition to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs FirstAmended Complaint filed by Sharon Blanchet. (Attachments: # 1 Proof ofService)(Grebing, Charles)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 178 RESPONSE re 163 Request for Judicial Notice filed by Marilyn Bierer, Biererand Associates. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Agle, Daniel) (yeb).(Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 179 REPLY to Response to Motion re 135 MOTION to Dismiss First AmendedComplaint filed by Marilyn Bierer, Bierer and Associates. (Attachments: # 1Proof of Service)(Agle, Daniel) (yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 180 REPLY to Response to Motion re 141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State aClaim Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First AMended ComplaintSupplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Reply MEmorandum of Points andAuthorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First AmendedComplaint Supplemental to Omnibus Motion filed by William D. Gore, SanDiego, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sanchez, Ricky) (yeb).(Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014 181 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) --Defendants' Omnibus Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed bySan Diego County Bar Association. (Lucas, Stephen) (yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

06/02/2014 182 TRANSFER ORDER. It is hereby ordered that the following case is transferredfrom the calendar of the Honorable Barbara L. Major, to the calendar of theHonorable Jill L. Burkhardt, for all further proceedings. All pending datesincluding discovery deadlines, hearings, and conferences before Magistrate JudgeMajor, if any, remain unchanged until further order and are now SET beforeMagistrate Judge Burkhardt. For cases with conferences or hearing dates set tooccur in June, 2014, counsel shall call Judge Burkhardts chambers within sevencalendar days of this transfer order to confirm that those conferences or hearingdates are going forward as scheduled. Any dates set before any district judgeremain unchanged. The new case number is 13cv1944 CAB (JLB). Signed byMagistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 06/02/14.(jcj) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 183 RESPONSE to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim --Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139Supplemental MOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FirstAmended Complaint, 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint Plaintiffs'Objections and Motion to Strike New Matter In Replies; Motion for Leave to FileSur-Reply Related Thereto filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb).(Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 184 NOTICE of Joinder by Chubb Group of Insurance Companies re 141 MOTION toDismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss FirstAMended Complaint Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, 144 Notice ofJoinder, 149 Notice of Joinder,, 150 Notice of Joinder, 181 Reply to Response toMotion, (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(La Pinta, Christine) (yeb). (Entered:06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 185 NOTICE of Joinder by Robert A. Simon, PH.D. re 167 Reply to Response toMotion, 142 Notice of Joinder, 181 Reply to Response to Motion, In RepliesSupporting Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Rawers,Brian) (yeb). (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/02/2014 186 ORDER: The court finds defendants omnibus motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 131 ]and related supplemental motions suitable for submission without oral argumentand therefore vacates the hearing set for June 6, 2014. In addition, the court deniesplaintiffs motion to strike or, in the alternative, for leave to file a sur-reply, findingno cause for the requested relief. [Doc. No. 183 .]. Signed by Judge Cathy AnnBencivengo on 06/02/2014.(yeb) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

06/04/2014 187 NOTICE of Joinder by Allen Slattery, Inc., Carole Baldwin, Laury Baldwin,Baldwin and Baldwin, William Hargraeves, Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, MeridithLevin, Janis Stocks, Stocks & Colburn re 141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure toState a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First AMended ComplaintSupplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, 135 MOTION to Dismiss FirstAmended Complaint, 144 Notice of Joinder, (Pestotnik, Timothy) (yeb). (Entered:06/04/2014)

06/05/2014 188 RESPONSE re 184 Notice of Joinder, 187 Notice of Joinder, 185 Notice ofJoinder, OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE LATE JOINDERS &


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


REPLIES filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart, Colbern) (jpp). (Entered:06/05/2014)

06/09/2014 189 MINUTE ORDER: The court vacates the hearing on plaintiffs motion forpreliminary injunction [Doc. No. 109 ] and on the motion for sanctions ofdefendant Superior Court of California, County of San Diego [Doc. No. 160 ],previously set for June 27, 2014. The court will issue a new scheduling order as tothese motions, if necessary, following disposition of the pending motions todismiss. (yeb) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

06/12/2014 190 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by California Coalition for Families andChildren. re 169 Reply to Response to Motion,, 152 Notice of Joinder, 144 Noticeof Joinder, 170 Reply to Response to Motion,, 142 Notice of Joinder, 163 Requestfor Judicial Notice, 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, 147 Notice ofJoinder, 177 Reply to Response to Motion, 176 Reply to Response to Motion, 173Reply to Response to Motion, 188 Response - Other, 175 Reply to Response toMotion, 186 Order, Motions Submitted, Terminate Motions and JudgeAssociation,,, 166 Response to Motion,,, 162 Reply to Response to Motion, 161Response in Opposition to Motion,,, 150 Notice of Joinder, 183 MOTION toStrike, 172 Reply to Response to Motion, 185 Notice of Joinder, 140 Notice ofJoinder,, 145 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as toOmnibus Motion [Docket 131 - 131-3] and Additional Points and Authorities, 141MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion toDismiss First AMended Complaint Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss,148 Notice of Joinder, 135 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, 131MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion[FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139 Supplemental MOTION to SupplementOmnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, 174 Reply to Response toMotion, 146 Notice of Joinder, 184 Notice of Joinder, 167 Reply to Response toMotion, 149 Notice of Joinder,, 187 Notice of Joinder, 180 Reply to Response toMotion, 171 Reply to Response to Motion, 138 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs'First Amended Complaint, 179 Reply to Response to Motion, 181 Reply toResponse to Motion, 137 Notice of Joinder, 151 Notice of Joinder, 168 Reply toResponse to Motion re: Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint[ECF Dkt. # 131] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d705 (3d Cir. 2013)(published opininon affriming federal RICO Section 1962(c)substantive contravention and RICO Section 1962(d) conspiracy contraventionand related federal crimes convictions)), # 2 Exhibit UNited States v. Ciavarella,3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF Dkt. # 134-first superseding indictment returnedagainst Mark A. Ciavarella, filed 29 September 2010, # 3 Exhibit United States v.Ciavarella, 3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF Dkt. # 206, returned jury verdict againstMark Civarella, filed 11 February 2011, # 4 Exhibit 3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECFDkt. # 272,entered amended judgment against Mark Ciavarella, filed 12 August2011, # 5 Exhibit 3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF Dkt. # 106, plea aagreement enterdby Michael T. Conahan, entering guilty plea for contravention of RICO Section1962(d) conspiracy, Count 2 of indictment, entered 29 April 2010, # 6 Exhibit3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF Dkt. # 292, entered judgment against Michael T.Conahan for contravention of RICO Section 1962(d) conspiracy entered 22September 2011, # 7 Exhibit 3:09-CR-00272-EMK, Statement to the Corut byGovernment COunsel iin Connection With Guilty Plea Colloquy;Acknowledgement by Michael T. Conahan, 22 July 2011)(Webb, Dean). (jah).


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


(Entered: 06/12/2014)

07/09/2014 191 ORDER dismissing case with prejudice; denying 109 Motion for PreliminaryInjunction; and denying 160 Motion for Sanctions. It is so ordered due to plaintiffsinabilityor unwillingnessto file a complaint that complies with Rule 8, the courtfinds that granting further leave to amend would unduly prejudice defendants.Accordingly, defendants pending motions to dismiss aregranted, and this action isdismissed with prejudice. In light of this dismissal, the court denies plaintiffsmotion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 109 .] The court does not concludethat plaintiffs filing was made solely for the purpose of harassing the defendantsor in contempt of the courts order to file a Rule 8 compliant pleading. Nomonetary sanction will be awarded, and the motion for sanctions 160 is denied.Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 07/08/2014. (yeb) (Entered:07/09/2014)

07/09/2014 192 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgmentis in favor of Administrative Office of the Courts, Allen Slattery, Inc., AmericanCollege of Forensic Examiners Institute, Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, &Kalemenkarian, Baldwin and Baldwin, Basie and Fritz, Bierer and Associates,CSB-Investigations, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, Commission onJudicial Performance, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc., Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, JudicialCouncil, Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano, Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc.,National Family Justice Center Alliance, Off Duty Officers, Inc., San DiegoCounty Bar Association, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San Diego, Cityof, San Diego, County of, Stocks & Colburn, Superior Court of San DiegoCounty, Brad Batson, Brian Watkins, Carole Baldwin, Christine Goldsmith, Dr.Lori Love, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Edlene Mckenzie, Emily Garson, Jan Goldsmith,Janis Stocks, Jeannie Lowe, Jeffrey Fritz, Joel Wohlfeil, Ken Smith, KristineNesthus, Larry Corrigan, Laury Baldwin, Lawrenece J. Simi, Lisa Schall, LoriClark Viviano, Lorna Alksne, Marilou Marcq, Marilyn Bierer, Meridith Levin,Michael Groch, Michael Roddy, Robert O'Block, Robert A. Simon, PH.D., RobertJ. Trentacostsa, Sharon Blanchet, Steven Jahr, Susan Griffin, Tani G.Cantilsakauye, Terry Chucas, William Hargraeves, William Mcadam, William D.Gore against California Coalition for Families and Children., Colbern C. Stuart.Due to plaintiffs inabilityor unwillingnessto file a complaint that complies withRule 8, the court finds that granting further leave to amend would undulyprejudice defendants. Accordingly, defendants pending motions to dismiss aregranted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.(yeb) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

07/14/2014 193 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 192 Clerk's Judgment, 191 Order,165 Order, 108 Order, 88 Order, 12 Order, by Colbern C. Stuart, CaliforniaCoalition for Families and Children. (Filing fee $ 505 receipt number 0974-7201767.) (Notice of Appeal electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals.)(Stuart, Colbern). (Modified on 7/14/2014 to add links to Judgment and Orders.Modified docket text to add the name of filer California Coalition for Families andChildren.) (akr). (Entered: 07/14/2014)

07/14/2014 194 NOTICE of Representation Statement re 193 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit,by Colbern C. Stuart, California Coalition for Families and Children. (Stuart,Colbern). (Modified on 7/14/2014 to edit docket text to reflect title of documentand to add the name of filer California Coalition for Families and Children. Filersused the Notice of Appeal event to file the Representation Statement. The filers'


10/21/2014 CM/ECF - casd


Notice of Appeal was filed at document 193 on 7/14/2014.) (akr). (Entered:07/14/2014)

07/15/2014 195 USCA Case Number 14-56140 for 193 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit, filed byColbern C. Stuart, California Coalition for Families and Children. (akr) (Entered:07/15/2014)

07/15/2014 196 USCA Time Schedule Order as to 193 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit, filed byColbern C. Stuart, California Coalition for Families and Children. (NOTICE TOPARTIES of deadlines regarding appellate transcripts: Appellant shall filetranscript designation and ordering form with the US District Court (see attached),provide a copy of the form to the court reporter, and make payment arrangementswith the court reporter on or by 8/13/2014 (see Ninth Circuit Rule 10-3.1); Duedate for filing of transcripts in US District Court is 9/12/2014.) (cc: CourtReporter). (Attachments: # 1 Transcript Designation and Ordering Form). (akr)(Entered: 07/15/2014)

09/08/2014 197 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM by Colbern C. Stuartfor proceedings held on 12/19/2013, 2/26/2014 (see addendum) re 193 Notice ofAppeal to 9th Circuit. (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/8/2014: # 1 ExhibitA, # 2 Exhibit B) (akr). (Stuart, Colbern). (The transcripts filed as Exhibits A andB have been separated and re-docketed as attachments. The transcript for2/26/2014 was officially filed at document 125 on 3/25/2014. The court reporterhas been notified re the pending official filing of transcript for date of 12/19/2013.Modified docket text to correct designated date. Modified document security reExhibits.) (akr). (Modified on 9/9/2014 to note that the transcript for 12/19/2013was officially filed at document 198 on 9/9/2014.) (akr). (Entered: 09/08/2014)

09/09/2014 198 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (Motion Hearing) for date of12/19/2013 before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, re 193 Notice of Appeal to 9thCircuit. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Mauralee Ramirez. Transcript may be viewedat the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriberbefore the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may beobtained through PACER or the Court Reporter/Transcriber. If redaction isnecessary, parties have seven calendar days from the file date of the Transcript toE-File the Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. The following deadlines wouldalso apply if requesting redaction: Redaction Request Statement due to CourtReporter/Transcriber 9/30/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/10/2014.Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/8/2014. (akr) (Entered: 09/09/2014)

PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt

10/21/2014 16:11:41

PACERLogin: Client Code: 1111

Description: Docket Report SearchCriteria:

3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB

BillablePages: 28 Cost: 2.80


Colbern C. Stuart III
