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-

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Case No. 17-CV-00252-WHO

Kimberly M, Drake, SBN: 209090

JARVIS, FAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON, LLP

492 Ninth Street, Suite 310

Oakland, CA 94607

Telephone: (510) 238-1400

Facsimile: (510) 238-1404

kdrake@jarvisfay.com

Attorneys for Defendant

LOUISE BAYLES-FIGHTMASTER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANDREWS,

Plaintiff, 

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SONOMA COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT 

SERVICES, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

MOTOR VEHICLES, CALIFORNIA BUREAU 

OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, LOUISE BAYLES 

FIGHTMASTER, KIRK GORMAN, KATHY 

SIMON, and DOES 1 through 20,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17-CV-00252-WHO

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT LOUISE BAYLESFIGHTMASTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date: July 19, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Courtroom: 2, 17th Floor

Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick

Action Filed: January 17, 2017

 

On July 19, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on defendant Commissioner Louise BaylesFightmaster’s motion to dismiss. Having considered the papers submitted and arguments made, and for 

the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mark Andrews is a party to a dissolution action and family law/child support 

proceedings brought in the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma. (Andrews v. Andrews, 

Case No. SFL15804.) As best as can be discerned from the pleadings, a judgment or order for child or 
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-

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Case No. 17-CV-00252-WHO

family support was issued against Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to comply with the judgment or order. 

Plaintiff allegedly received notice from two licensing boards notifying him that his license would be 

suspended pursuant to California Family Code section 17520 et seq. According to the pleadings, 

Plaintiff appeared at a hearing in the state court in September 2013 requesting that his licenses be 

released to him, which was denied. He appeared at another hearing in February 2014 and his licenses 

were released to him in March 2014. 

Defendant Louise Bayles-Fightmaster is sued in her role as a Commissioner for the Superior 

Court who presided over a child custody contempt calendar and made rulings in Plaintiff’s case. The 

remaining allegations are asserted against other government entities and individuals who were involved 

in the state court proceedings or other proceedings relating to Plaintiff’s licenses. 

Based on generalized allegations of civil rights violations in connection with the suspension of 

his licenses, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and $100 million in damages against defendants.

ANALYSIS

The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction on any of the grounds urged by Plaintiff 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because such official-capacity suits against state officials such as Commissioner 

Bayles-Fightmaster are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. 

Const. amend. XI; See Kentucky v. Graham, 472 U.S. 159, 169-70 (1985)). Nor is Commissioner 

Bayles-Fightmaster a proper party to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 

364-65 (9th Cir. 2004).

The Court further finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the First Amended 

Complaint challenges prior state court decisions in 2013 and 2014 and, as such, is barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine. Alternatively, this Court declines to intervene in ongoing state court child custody 

proceedings based upon abstention doctrines and the absence of allegations warranting such 

interference.

The Court further finds that the First Amended Complaint rests entirely on allegations that 

Commissioner Bayles-Fightmaster performed adjudicative acts for which she is entitled to absolute 

judicial immunity from suit and civil damages liability. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed in 2017, arising out of 
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-

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Case No. 17-CV-00252-WHO

Commissioner Bayles-Fightmaster’s adjudicative activities in 2013 and 2014, is barred by the applicable

statute of limitations.

Any state law claims are further barred on the grounds that Plaintiff did not allege compliance 

with applicable claims statutes. The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in order 

to reach and entertain any purported state law claims against Commissioner Bayles-Fightmaster. 

Plaintiff does not otherwise state facts sufficient to state a plausible claim upon which relief may 

be granted against Commissioner Bayles-Fightmaster. Nor are there allegations establishing a present 

and actual controversy to support a claim for declaratory relief.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Commissioner Bayles-Fightmaster’s motion to dismiss the First 

Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Because this Court has determined that the defects identified in 

this Order would not be cured by amendment, the Court grants the motion WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge
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-

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Case No. 17-CV-00252-WHO

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, declare as follows:

I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Alameda; I am over the age of 

eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is Jarvis, Fay, Doporto 

& Gibson, LLP, 492 Ninth Street, Suite 310, Oakland, California 94607.

On May 16, 2017, I served the within:

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LOUISE BAYLESFIGHTMASTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(X) (By First Class Mail) I caused this envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in 

the United States mail to be mailed by First Class mail at Oakland, California, to:

Mark T. Andrews

3436C Mendocino Avenue

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Plaintiff in pro per

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 

true and correct. 

Executed on May 16, 2017, at Oakland, California.

 /s/ _ Chelsea L. Torres