Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03961/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03961-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT W. COPPLE, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRELLA & RICE, P.C., et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-3961 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 9, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The Court tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(1), tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and

RESERVES RULING on whether to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The Court

tentatively GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ requests for judicial notice. The

Case 3:05-cv-03961-JSW Document 45 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice. The Court RESERVES

RULING on Defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. There is an outstanding Order to Show Cause in this case, which was issued March 28,

2006. The Order specifically stated that Plaintiff was to file a written response no later

than April 14, 2006, explaining “why this case should not be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to serve the Defendants within the time period provided by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and the additional time granted by the Court.” (OSC at 1-2.) Did

Plaintiff serve Defendants with his initial complaint? If so, when did this occur? Why

did Plaintiff not comply with the Court’s Order to submit a written response?

2. What is Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ assertion on reply that he lacks standing to

bring this claim?

3. Plaintiff contends the Court has jurisdiction because he alleges extrinsic fraud, relying

on Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Rooker-Feldman . . .

does not bar subject matter jurisdiction when a federal plaintiff alleges a cause of action

for extrinsic fraud on a state court . . . .”). The Ninth Circuit has held that “a

jurisdictional finding of genuinely disputed facts is inappropriate when the jurisdictional

issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is

dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits of an action.” Safe Air

for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and

citations omitted). Assuming Plaintiff sufficiently alleges extrinsic fraud, what is

Defendants’ best argument that the issue of jurisdiction and the merits of this case are

not intertwined?

4. Plaintiff contends his Complaint meets the standard for pleading under Fed.R.Civ.P.

8(a). Does Plaintiff have any authority to support the assertion that the pleading

standards for his claim are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)? Cf. Wasco Prods., Inc. v.

Southwall Techs., Inc., 435 F.3d 989, 990 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that where the object

of an alleged conspiracy is fraudulent, "Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Case 3:05-cv-03961-JSW Document 45 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

3

requires plaintiffs to plead fraud with particularity"). Do Defendants contend that

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient under either Rule 8(a) or Rule 9(b)?

5. How does Plaintiff distinguish his conspiracy allegations, set forth in paragraphs 38 and

41 of the Complaint, from allegations that were held to be insufficient in Schucker v.

Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204-05 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that conclusory allegations

of a judge conspiring with lawyers is “insufficient to support his § 1983 claim”);

Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 290-91 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that Branson’s claims that

a judge conspired with attorneys to ignore his arguments and dismiss his case were an

impermissible collateral attack on the prior state court decision); and Fries v. Helsper,

146 F.3d 452, 458 (7th Cir. 1998) ( “mere allegations of joint action or a conspiracy

[with a judge] do not demonstrate that the [attorney] defendants acted under color of

state law . . .”)?

6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions in the state court proceedings violated his civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Of what specific federal right was Plaintiff deprived?

7. Defendants contend that the record of the state court proceedings, attached to their

Requests for Judicial Notice, contradict Plaintiff's allegations of a conspiracy. What is

Plaintiff's response to this assertion?

8. If the Court grants the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, what additional facts

would Plaintiff plead to show the existence of a conspiracy or extrinsic fraud?

9. What is Plaintiff’s best argument that he had a good faith basis for his claims that would

render Rule 11 sanctions against him inappropriate? If the Court were to grant

sanctions, against whom specifically should they be imposed? For what time period are

Defendants seeking sanctions?

10. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: June 7, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03961-JSW Document 45 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3