Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02027/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02027-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

VERONICA BRILL; KASEY LYN MILLS; 

MARC GOONE; NAVROOP SHERGILL; 

JASON SCOTT; AZAAN NAGRA; ELI 

JAMES; PHUONG PHAN; JEFFREY 

SLUZINSKI; HARLAN KARNOFSKY; 

NATHAN PELKEY; MATTHEW ALLEN 

HOLTZCLAW; JON TUROVITZ; ROBERT 

YOUNG; BLAKE ALEXANDER KRAFT; 

JAMAN YONN BURTON; MICHAEL 

ROJAS; HAWNLAY SWEN; THOMAS 

MORRIS III; PAUL LOPEZ; ROLANDO 

CAO; BENJAMIN JACKSON; HUNG SAM; 

COREY CASPERS; ADAM DUONG; 

DUSTIN MCCARTHY; CHOU VINCE 

XIONG; BRIAN OLSON; CAMERON 

SMITH; JORDAN DIAMOND; ARONN 

SOLIS; ALISHA DANIELS-DUCKWORTH; 

CHRISTIAN SOTO VASQUEZ; ANDREW 

HERNANDEZ; DARRELL STEED; ARISH 

S. NAT; KYLE KITAGAWA; BRIAN 

MICHAEL RAASCH; ZEEV MALKIN; 

DAVID CRITTENTON; PATRICK 

LAFFEY; PARAS SINGH; FIRAS 

BOURI; IDRIS M. YONISI; JOSHUA 

WHITESELL; DAVID DUARTE; HARUN 

UNAI BEGIC; BRAD KRAFT; TAYLOR 

CARROLL; ELIAS ABOUFARES; TYLER 

DENSEN; ANDREW LOK; JAKE 

ROSENSTIEL; ANTHONY AJLOUNY; 

HECTOR MARTIN; DALE MENGHE; 

SCOTT SCHLEIN; AUGUSTE SHASTRY;

NICHOLAS COLVIN; JASON MARKWITH; 

BRIAN WATSON; SHANE GONZALES; 

No. 2:19-cv-02027 WBS AC

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Case 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC Document 64 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 4
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

KATHERINE STAHL; MIKE NELSON; 

BRANDON STEADMAN; BRYANT MILLER; 

HONG MOON; MATTHEW GOUGE; 

NICHOLAUS WOODERSON; CARLOS 

WELCH; ARIEL REID; DAN MAYER; 

ANTHONY GIGLINI; RYAN JACONETTI; 

ARIEL CRIS MANIPULA; TRENTON 

SIDENER; JAMES JOHN O’CONNOR; 

PATRICK VANG; MARCUS DAVIS; ADAM 

COHEN; DERICK COLE; AARON 

MCCORMACK; BRENNEN ALEXANDER 

COOK; MICHAEL PHONESAVANH 

RASPHONE; BENJAMIN TENG; SCOTT 

SORENSON; ANTHONY HUGENBERG; and 

BILLY JOE MESSIMER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL L. POSTLE; KING’S 

CASINO, LLC D/B/A STONES 

GAMBLING HALL; JUSTIN F. 

KURAITIS; JOHN DOES 1-10; and 

JANE DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for sanctions under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”) and Local Rule 182 

against defendant Michael Postle upon the ground that he 

allegedly used an attorney ghostwriter to author his motion to 

dismiss in the above captioned action.

Michael Postle is not an attorney. He is representing 

himself, in propria persona, as he has a right to do, in this 

action. Plaintiffs base their suggestion that his motion to 

dismiss was ghostwritten by an attorney upon the facts that the 

motion cited to controlling law using correct Bluebook citations 

and bears a striking resemblance to another a motion brought on 

Postle’s behalf in another case, authored by his attorney in that 

Case 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC Document 64 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 4
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

action. See United States v. Hughes, Case No. 2:20-cv-00321-JAMKJN (E.D. Cal. 2020) at Docket No. 6.

Regardless of whether Postle had his motion 

ghostwritten by that attorney or cut and pasted from the brief 

his attorney filed in that prior case, the court sees no reason 

to impose sanctions here. 

Rule 11 “requires all attorneys to verify through their 

signatures that there are sufficient grounds for the arguments in 

their pleadings.” Walker v. Pac. Mar. Assoc., No. C07-3100 BZ,

2008 WL 1734757, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Arp. 14, 2008) (citations 

omitted). Nothing in its language prohibits ghostwriting or even 

plagiarizing pleadings. Similarly, Local Rule 182(a)(1) provides 

“no attorney may participate in any action unless the attorney 

has appeared as an attorney of record,” but also does not 

specifically proscribe ghostwriting or assign a consequence for 

engaging in it. See L.R. 182(a)(1).

Federal courts in California and elsewhere have frowned 

upon the practice of ghostwriting. See Shalaby v. Jacobowitz, 

No. C 03-0227-CRB, 2003 WL 1907664, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 

2003) (quoting Laremont-Lopez v. Se. Tidewater Opportunity 

Project, 968 F. Supp. 1075, 1080 (E.D. Vir. 1997)). However, 

counsel has been unable to identify anything in the State Bar of 

California’s Rules of Professional Conduct which proscribes such 

practice. For that reason, courts have been hesitant to award 

sanctions where ghostwriting of pleadings has been found. See, 

e.g., Ricotta v. State of Cal., 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 987 (S.D. Cal. 

1998) aff’d sub nom. Ricotta v. State of Cal., 173 F.3d 861 (9th 

Cir. 1999). 

Case 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC Document 64 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 4
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

For the foregoing reasons, the court declines to 

exercise its discretion to impose sanctions here.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for 

sanctions be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

Dated: June 3, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC Document 64 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 4