Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01594/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01594-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

19cv1594-W-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREL SPIKES,

Plaintiff, 

v.

RENAE M. ARABO, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 19cv1594-W-MDD

ORDER DISQUALIFYING 

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL

Beginning in January 2019, and continuing throughout the year, 

attorney Geoffrey Bentley, on behalf of Karel Spikes, filed 16 complaints in 

this Court, including this case, alleging violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and for violations of the 

state counterpart of the ADA, known as the Unruh Act, California Civil Code 

§ 51, et seq. Simultaneously or within days, Mr. Bentley, as plaintiff, filed 

complaints in the Superior Court alleging nearly identical violations of the 

Unruh Act against the same defendants. See Attachment A. This conduct 

raised concerns with the Court resulting in this Order to Show Cause, issued 

on January 27, 2020, requiring attorney Bentley, to explain why he should 

not be disqualified from representing Mr. Spikes in this case because of 

Case 3:19-cv-01594-W-MDD Document 9 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

19cv1594-W-MDD

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

professional misconduct. (ECF No. 6). Mr. Bentley and Defendants filed 

responses to the Court’s order to show cause.

1 (ECF Nos. 7, 8). For the 

reasons stated herein, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s counsel be 

disqualified from representing Mr. Spikes in this case.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

It is within the trial court’s discretion to disqualify counsel due to an 

ethical violation.2 See Censhaw v. MONY Life Ins. Co., 318 F. Supp. 2d 1015, 

1020 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (“The disqualification of counsel because of an ethical 

violation is a discretionary exercise of the trial court’s inherent powers.”). 

Notably, that power is one the Court can invoke sua sponte. State Comp. Ins. 

Fund v. Drobot, 192 F. Supp. 3d 1080, 1090 (C.D. Cal. 2016). In fact, 

“‘[w]henever an allegation is made that an attorney has violated his moral 

and ethical responsibility . . . [i]t is the duty of the district court to examine 

the charge, since it is that court which is authorized to supervise the conduct 

of the members of its bar.’” Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 303 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (quoting Gas-A-Tron of Ariz. v. Union Oil Co., 534 F.2d 1322, 1324-

25 (9th Cir. 1976)). When deciding whether disqualification of counsel is 

appropriate, “the paramount concern must be the preservation of public trust 

both in the scrupulous administration of justice and in the integrity of the 

 

1 Defendants request the Court set an evidentiary hearing on the matter to discuss the 

conduct of another attorney, Thomas Vandeveld, who is not an attorney of record in this 

case. (ECF No. 8). While the conduct described by Defendants may raise ethical concerns, 

the Court declines to address them here and instead focuses on the conduct of the attorney 

of record in this case. The Court also declines Mr. Bentley’s request to file a sur-reply. 

(ECF No. 7 at 2).

2 “Although the Ninth Circuit has not squarely addressed the issue, other courts in the 

Ninth Circuit have uniformly treated motions to disqualify counsel as non-dispositive 

pretrial matters that a magistrate judge may adjudicate.” Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. v. 

SourceAmerica, No. 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-DHB, 2016 WL 4361808, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16,

2016) (collecting cases).

Case 3:19-cv-01594-W-MDD Document 9 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

19cv1594-W-MDD

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

bar.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ins., 72 Cal. App. 4th 1422, 1428 

(Cal. Ct. App. 1999).

Civil Local Rule 83.4 requires attorneys permitted to practice in this 

Court to comply with the standards of professional conduct required of 

members of the State Bar of California and prohibits attorneys from engaging 

“in any conduct which degrades or impugns the integrity of the court or in 

any manner interferes with the administration of justice within the Court.” 

S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.4(b). Pursuant to Rule 8.4 of California’s Rules of 

Professional Conduct, it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in 

conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional 

misrepresentation,” or conduct that is “prejudicial to the administration of 

justice.” Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 8.4(c)-(d).

II. DISCUSSION

Mr. Bentley concedes that he and Mr. Spikes have separately sued 

Defendants for discrimination. (ECF No. 7 at 3). He likewise does not 

dispute that he has filed sixteen sets of nearly identical lawsuits on behalf of 

himself in state court and Mr. Spikes in federal court. (See id.; see also 

Attachment A). In responding to the Court’s order to show cause, Mr. 

Bentley admits that he files lawsuits on his own behalf in state court because 

he encounters barriers while attempting to uphold his duty under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 –

not because he intended to use and enjoy the facility’s accommodations. (Id.

at 4). It appears that Mr. Spikes advises Mr. Bentley he has encountered a 

barrier at a specific location and would like Mr. Bentley to file a lawsuit on 

his behalf. Mr. Bentley asserts that he visits these locations to confirm his 

client’s allegations and comply with his own obligations under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 11. The ethical issue arises when Mr. Bentley files a 

Case 3:19-cv-01594-W-MDD Document 9 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

19cv1594-W-MDD

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

lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Spikes and in short order files his own lawsuit in 

state court on his own behalf alleging the same barriers. 

In his state court complaints, Mr. Bentley asserts that he is a bona fide

customer, visiting the Defendants’ business “for the purposes of using and 

enjoying the facility’s accommodations[.]” (See ECF No. 8 at 2-3). That is 

false. By his own admission, Mr. Bentley’s purpose of visiting Defendants’ 

business was not to use and enjoy the facility—it was simply to complete his 

legal obligation. The Court concludes that the purpose for filing this second 

lawsuit is solely to extract more money from these Defendants for himself in 

addition to whatever legal fees he may recover in the federal case. As 

explained by Defendants, “[i]f [Mr.] Spikes and [Mr.] Bentley genuinely 

sought no more than to remove barriers, they would not need two lawsuits to 

achieve their goals; one in either state or federal court would suffice. Instead, 

[they] filed two separate lawsuits, both claiming precisely the same 

circumstances leading to their alleged encounters. Their intention, as 

evidenced by the complaint, was always to multiply the litigation, thereby 

maximizing not only the costs of defense, but . . . to maximize the settlement 

value of the two cases.” (ECF No. 8 at 3-4 (emphasis in original)). 

This illustrates a scheme to defraud; Mr. Bentley is seeking to obtain 

money from Defendants based upon a false representation – that he 

encountered the alleged barrier as a bona fide customer. See e.g., Title 18,

United States Code, section 1341 (stating that whoever obtains money or 

property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or 

promises has engaged in a scheme to defraud). Mr. Bentley’s representation 

of Mr. Spikes in this Court provides him the opportunity to obtain reasonable 

attorney’s fees from Defendants. Mr. Bentley’s lawsuit in Superior Court, in 

which he is the plaintiff under the Unruh Act, provides him with the 

Case 3:19-cv-01594-W-MDD Document 9 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

19cv1594-W-MDD

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

opportunity to obtain statutory damages and, perhaps, to provide another 

lawyer with the opportunity to collect attorney’s fees from Defendants. His 

decision to file in two different courts may be intended to obscure the scheme 

from the supervision of judges in these cases.

This conduct degrades or impugns the integrity of the court, interferes 

with the administration of justice within the Court, and is prejudicial to the 

administration of justice. Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 8.4(d); S.D. Cal. Civ. 

L.R. 83.4. Additionally, inasmuch as Mr. Bentley alleges that he intends to 

use and enjoy Defendants’ facility in his state court complaints, his conduct 

involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and reckless or intentional 

misrepresentation. Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) (“It is professional 

misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation.”).

Mr. Bentley argues that his conduct is protected by the right to petition 

the government for redress of grievances and his individual rights.

3 (ECF

No. 7 at 3-4). This argument entirely misses the Court’s concern. The Court 

is not concerned with Mr. Bentley’s decision to file lawsuits on his own 

behalf. The Court is concerned with his decision to represent a client in 

federal court and use his client’s allegations as a means of multiplying 

litigation and obtaining more money for himself—partly by misrepresenting 

that he is a bona fide customer who visited Defendants’ facility with the 

intent to use and enjoy the facilities. The Court is not inhibiting Mr. 

Bentley’s ability to file lawsuits; rather, the Court is disqualifying him from 

 

3 Mr. Bentley also argues that the appearance of impropriety is insufficient to disqualify 

counsel, and therefore conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice should also be 

an insufficient basis for disqualification. (ECF No. 7). Mr. Bentley cites no legal authority 

in support of this argument, and the Court declines to address it.

Case 3:19-cv-01594-W-MDD Document 9 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

19cv1594-W-MDD

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

representing Mr. Spikes in this case for dishonest, deceitful and fraudulent 

conduct, based on facts admitted by Mr. Bentley, which prejudices the 

administration of justice.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISQUALIFIES Mr. Bentley and 

the Law Office of Geoffrey Bentley as counsel for Plaintiff in this case. In 

addition, the Court will refer Mr. Bentley to the disciplinary committee of 

this Court for appropriate action pursuant to this Court’s Civil Local Rule 

83.5(e) and to The State Bar of California. The Clerk of Court is instructed 

to terminate Geoffrey Bentley of the Law Office of Geoffrey Bentley as 

counsel of record for Plaintiff Karel Spikes. Plaintiff is advised that if he 

does not obtain new counsel, he will proceed in this action pro se. The Court 

will hold a telephonic status hearing on March 12, 2020 at 9:15 a.m. Only 

counsel for Defendants and either Mr. Spikes or his new attorney must 

participate. Counsel and Mr. Spikes, or if represented, his new attorney, are 

ordered to use the dial-in information filed as a separate notice to access the 

Court’s teleconference service.4 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2020

 

4 The teleconference information sheet can be accessed through ECF using the login 

information assigned to an attorney of record in the case and then selecting the “report” 

option. On the next screen, the “docket sheet” option should be selected, prompting the 

user for a PACER login (assigned to the attorney of record). Once the PACER login is 

completed, the case number can be entered which will display the docket sheet for the case 

and allow the user to open the teleconference information sheet. 

/1, t cYM);l ~- ~ L 

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01594-W-MDD Document 9 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6