Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02415/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02415-5/pdf.json

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

---

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 Defendant Martha L. Daetwyler, Esq. was also named in

plaintiff’s complaint. The Court granted Daetwyler’s motion to

dismiss on December 13, 2005.

2 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. CANATELLA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JOHN VAN DE KAMP, ESQ., et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-2415 BZ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Richard Canatella filed this action on June 15,

2005 against the State Bar of California (erroneously sued as

the California Bar Journal (the “Bar Journal”)) and several

officers of the State Bar,1 alleging defendants violated

plaintiff’s First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.2

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on several grounds, including that

plaintiff’s federal claims are time barred. 

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 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

3 As discussed below, plaintiff’s claim accrued in

February 2000. The statute of limitations was then one year. 

Because extending the statute on January 1, 2003 did not revive

claims which had already expired, plaintiff’s claim is governed

by the previous one-year statute. Maldonado v. Harris, 370

F.3d 945, 954-5 (9th Cir. 2004).

4 It is difficult to understand how a summary of

discipline to which plaintiff stipulated, which was

unobjectionable when published in print, somehow violates 

plaintiff’s civil rights when it is posted on the State Bar’s

website. Nevertheless, for purposes of this ruling, the Court

assumes that plaintiff has stated a civil rights claim. 

2

The essence of plaintiff’s complaint is that defendants

violated his civil rights when they published a summary of

plaintiff’s discipline record (the summary) on the State Bar’s

website.

In their motion, defendants argue that because the

summary was published on their website in February 2000,

plaintiff’s complaint, filed June 15, 2005, is time barred. 

Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations did not begin

to run until July 17, 2004, when former defendant Martha

Daetwyler cited the summary in a court proceeding. 

California personal injury law provides the statute of

limitations for plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. Jones v. Blanas,

393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004). The current statute of

limitations is two years. Cal. Civ. P. Code § 335.1. 

Defendants argue that the former one-year statute of

limitations should apply.3 The more difficult question is

when plaintiff’s claim accrued. Assuming that plaintiff

states a federal civil rights claim,4 accrual is governed by

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 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

5 Under state law, the Uniform Single Publication Act

limits plaintiff to one cause of action for damages founded on

any single publication, and the statute of limitations period

runs from the first instance of publication. Cal. Civ. Code §

3425.3; see also Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 949 (9th Cir.

2001)(affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment and

refusal to toll the statute of limitations until discovery) and

Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1250-51 (2003). 

3

federal law.5 Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 955 (9th

Cir. 2004). “Under federal law, a claim accrues when the

plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is

the basis of the action.” Id. (quoting TwoRivers v. Lewis,

174 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Plaintiff first challenges the date on which the summary

appeared on the State Bar’s website. At a hearing on October

12, 2005, it became apparent that this threshold issue could

not be determined from the face of the complaint or from any

matter of which I could take judicial notice. Accordingly, as

permitted by Rule 12(b)(6), I gave the parties an opportunity

to take limited discovery on this issue and to submit matters

outside the pleadings to see if this potentially dispositive

issue could be resolved at the outset of the litigation. I

otherwise stayed the litigation. 

Defendants submitted additional declarations from Nancy

McCarthy, the Editor and General Manager of the Bar Journal

and its Senior Writer from March 1991 to November 2000, which

establish that the summary appeared on the State Bar’s website

in February 2000 (McCarthy Decl. dated October 19, 2005, ¶ 2). 

In her declarations, McCarthy explains the Bar Journal’s

practice of posting the Bar Journal online and avers that the

February 2000 issue of the Bar Journal was posted on the State

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Bar’s website on or about February 1, 2000 (Id. ¶ 6). She

avers, “The State Bar’s business practice around February 2000

was to check the website to make sure an edition of the

California Bar Journal had been posted before paying any

invoice” and “[t]o the best of [her] knowledge and the records

of the State Bar, no edition of the California Bar Journal has

failed to be posted at or around the same time as its physical

publication” (McCarthy Decl. dated November 22, 2005, ¶ 6). 

Plaintiff deposed McCarthy. In her deposition, McCarthy again

averred that the February 2000 issue of the Bar Journal was

posted online on or about February 1, 2000 (Erlewine Decl.,

Exh. B 13:10-19, 19:1-11). She testified that “each month

we’d just check to make sure [the Bar Journal] was up” and “we

would go online to see if it was there” and she was never

aware “that the edition for that particular month had not been

posted online in the month that the hard copy had been mailed

out” (Id. 85:12 - 86:9). 

Neither of plaintiff’s challenges to defendants’ factual

showing create a disputed issue of material fact such that

summary adjudication of this issue is unwarranted. Plaintiff

first argues that he and his staff could not locate the

summary when they searched for it. Plaintiff relies heavily

on the declaration of Adriano Hrvatin, a law student working

in his office during the fall of 2002. Hrvatin declares that

around October 2002, while navigating the State Bar’s website,

he “clicked on the link” entitled “Attorney Search” to

“[c]heck an attorney’s bar membership” and then clicked on

another link entitled “Attorney/Member Search” and typed

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 4 of 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

6 Plaintiff provides no support for his argument that

linking the summary to plaintiff’s membership records was a

republication. See infra note 8. Nor is there any reason to

make actionable a technological change that simplifies access

to public information that is not objectionable. See Mack v.

State Bar, 92 Cal.App.4th 957, 962-64 (2001).

7 Dr. Crittenden is a sociologist by training but

styles himself a “Computer Consultant.” He declares “that Ms.

McCarthy testified that the ‘web master’ does ‘maintain a

record of when something is actually posted on the internet.’ 

However, she failed to bring those critical records with her to

the deposition despite a request that she produce those

records.” (internal citations omitted) Since plaintiff did not

5

“Canatella, Richard A.” The search yielded plaintiff’s page,

which “noted that Mr. Canatella ‘has a public record of

discipline’” which could be obtained upon request (Hrvatin

Decl. ¶ 4). Based on this search and others conducted between

October 2002 and August 2003, Hrvatin declares he did not find

the summary on the State Bar’s website (Hrvatin Decl. ¶¶ 4,

6). Nowhere does Hrvatin declare that he logged on to that

portion of the State Bar’s website which archives past

editions of the Bar Journal and that the summary was not in

the February 2000 edition. Hrvatin does not establish that in

2002 the summary did not exist online; he only establishes

that the State Bar had not yet provided a link between

plaintiff’s name and the summary. This is consistent with

evidence presented by both sides that such a link was created

in 2003.6

Plaintiff also provides the declaration of Dr.

Crittenden. Dr. Crittenden does not offer any facts to

controvert defendants’ showing. He merely opines that he

believes it highly improbable that the summary was posted when

defendants assert.7 His opinion is not sufficient to create a

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 5 of 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

append those portions of Ms. McCarthy’s deposition in either

electronic or hard copy form, they are not part of the record. 

In any event, plaintiff has still failed to establish that a

material fact is in dispute. If plaintiff did request

production of the “web master’s” records and defendants did not

comply, plaintiff could have asked me to compel production. If

the “web master” could conclusively determine the date when the

summary was posted, both sides could, and should, have

submitted such conclusive evidence, but the record before me

does not include it. I am unwilling to speculate what such

evidence might be or why no party submitted it.

6

disputed issue of material fact. Triton Energy Corporation v.

Square D Company, 68 F.3d 1216, 1222 (9th Cir.

1995)(“Therefore, we find that Bennett’s expert opinion and

the inferences Triton seeks to draw from it are not of

sufficient quantum and quality to create genuine issues of

material fact.”).

Plaintiff has failed to show that there is a genuine

issue as to the material fact of when the summary in the

February 2000 issue of the Bar Journal was posted online. 

Based on the record, I conclude plaintiff’s summary was

available on the State Bar’s website in February 2000.

Plaintiff also appears to contend that the posting on

the internet was a separate publication or republication of

the summary which first appeared in the print version of the

February 2000 Bar Journal. This contention has at least two

problems. First, at the hearing, plaintiff conceded that the

online summary was the same as the version published in the

print edition. He admitted that he did not have any problems

with the print version; his objection is to posting it on the

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 6 of 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

8 In his supplemental papers, he now argues that the

summary is false and misleading because the defendants hid it

in an obscure location on the internet. It is immaterial when

the State Bar linked the summary to plaintiff’s name or made it

easily searchable. If the summary was online, then it was

available to the public. Making a public document more

accessible does not violate plaintiff’s civil rights. See

Mack, 92 Cal.App.4th at 962-64. 

9 To the extent that plaintiff argues that the State

Bar does not have a right to publish discipline records online,

that issue has already been decided against him. Mack, 92

Cal.App.4th at 962-63 (holding that the State Bar could publish

on its website an attorney’s record of private reproval and

noting the policy favoring disclosure of public discipline

records).

7

internet (Transcr. of Proceedings on October 12, 2005, p. 7).8

Plaintiff’s contention that the mere act of posting an

unobjectionable summary of his discipline record on the

internet converted such summary into a false or misleading

publication is unconvincing. If the print version is not

defamatory or objectionable, it is hard to see how the

electronic version can be.9 Second, even assuming that a

later publication of the same Bar Journal summary on a

website constitutes a republication intended to reach a

different audience, Kanarek v. Bugliosi, 108 Cal.App.3d 327

(1980), plaintiff’s claim still falls outside the applicable

statute of limitations. Under state law, the single

publication rule applies to postings on the internet,

Traditional Cat Ass’n v. Gilbreath, 118 Cal.App.4th 392, 403-

404 (2004), so the latest this summary would have been

republished was February 2000. 

Under federal law, “a claim accrues when a plaintiff

knows or has reason to know of the injury.” Maldonado, 370

F.3d at 955 (emphasis added). Plaintiff knew or should have

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 7 of 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

10 This case is distinguishable from Schneider v. United

Airlines, Inc., 208 Cal.App.3d 71 (1989)(holding that

plaintiffs, whose credit was twice denied, had two separate

causes of action against an airline which had transmitted

allegedly false credit information to a credit reporting agency

which had provided the information to two different banks on

separate occasions). In cases such as this one, where

plaintiff’s summary was published in a magazine and on the

internet and intended for mass distribution, the single

publication rule should apply.

8

known that his discipline record would be public in 1999 when

he stipulated to discipline to resolve charges pending

against him. He concedes that he saw the summary in the

print version of the Bar Journal in February 2000 (Transcr.

11:17-20). As a member of the State Bar, he should have

received, and does not deny receiving, a variety of materials

from the State Bar informing him that the Bar Journal was

available on the internet (McCarthy Decl. dated November 22,

2005, Exhs. 1-18). By the time the Bar Journal published the

summary in its February 2000 edition, the State Bar had been

making the Bar Journal available online for four years, since

January 1996. I find that he knew or should have known in

2000 that his summary would be available to the public, both

in print and online. His attempts to check the State Bar’s

website in 2002 to see if his discipline record had been

posted attest to this. 

Plaintiff argues repeatedly that the statute of

limitations began to run only when he discovered the online

version in 2004 after former defendant Daetwyler cited it in

a court proceeding. Plaintiff has provided no authority for

this proposition.10 His reliance on cases such as Hobart v.

Hobart Estate Co., 26 Cal.2d 412 (1945) is misplaced since

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 8 of 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

11 Notwithstanding his current arguments, plaintiff did

not consider these cases sufficiently related to file a related

case motion under Local Rule 3-12. 

9

these cases interpret statutes of limitations which the

California legislature has by statute decreed do not begin to

run until discovery.

Plaintiff next argues that the statute of limitations in

this case was equitably tolled because on March 29, 2000 he

filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of

State Bar statutes and a rule of conduct and seeking an

injunction prohibiting the State Bar from taking disciplinary

action against plaintiff under the challenged disciplinary

rules. See Canatella v. State of California, 304 F.3d 843

(9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff argues that the March 2000 action

gave defendants timely notice of the need to defend against

this claim, defendants have not been prejudiced by his

failure to file earlier and he acted reasonably and in good

faith in bringing the present action, so that the statute of

limitations in the present action was equitably tolled. 

The filing of plaintiff’s March 2000 action challenging

various State Bar rules of discipline is not so related to

the present suit,11 which involves the online publication of

the summary of plaintiff’s discipline record, that defendants

could be said to have had notice of this action in March of

2000. Nowhere does plaintiff explain how the filing of the

March 2000 action put defendants on notice that the summary,

which was not objectionable in print version, would produce

this lawsuit if the summary were posted online. Nor is this

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 9 of 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

12 To the extent any state torts remain outstanding in

plaintiff’s complaint, having dismissed all federal claims, I

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3).

10

a case where plaintiff had to file the March 2000 action as a

precondition to filing this suit. Conley v. Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, 810 F.2d 913, 915 (9th Cir.

1987)(“Equitable tolling is most appropriate when the

plaintiff is required to avail himself of an alternate course

of action as a precondition to filing suit.”). Courts have

tolled the statute of limitations in cases of fraudulent

concealment or in cases where plaintiff could not have

reasonably discovered the facts giving rise to his claim. 

Cusano, 264 F.3d at 949. Neither is the case here. None of

plaintiff’s arguments establish a basis for equitably tolling

the statute of limitations in this case. 

The summary of plaintiff’s discipline record was

available on the State Bar’s website in February 2000. 

Plaintiff did not file his suit until June 15, 2005. 

Therefore, the statute of limitations period for plaintiff’s

claim expired before plaintiff filed his complaint.12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which has been

disposed of under Rule 56, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. 

2. Since plaintiff’s action is time barred,

plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is

DENIED as moot. 

3. There being no opposition, defendants’ request for

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 10 of 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

11

judicial notice in support of their motion to

dismiss, submitted August 1, 2005 is GRANTED. 

4. Defendants’ request for judicial notice in support

of their motion to dismiss, or alternatively,

motion for summary judgment, submitted October 27,

2005 is DENIED. Absent foundational information

about how the Internet Archive is constituted, I am

not satisfied that this is a source whose accuracy

cannot reasonably be questioned. See FRE 201. 

5. Defendants’ request for judicial notice in

opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunction is DENIED as moot. 

6. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice in support

of his motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s request is

granted as to ¶¶ 1, 4 and 6 and denied as to ¶¶ 2,

3 and 5. Plaintiff’s request as to ¶ 7 is granted,

except as to the summary, which has not been

authenticated.

7. Defendants’ objections to the declarations of

Richard Canatella and Butler Crittenden are

OVERRULED. They go to the weight I attach to the

evidence.

Dated: December 19, 2005

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\CANATELLA\BardismissYIbzv4.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-02415-BZ Document 83 Filed 12/19/05 Page 11 of 11