UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TETYANA DORSANEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD MATTHEW DORSANEO,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00765-VC 

ORDER SANCTIONING 

DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 109

The responses to the order to show cause issued on February 24, 2018 demonstrate that 

Edward Dorsaneo's counsel, Jeffrey Neustadt, engaged in at least two kinds of serious 

misconduct in this case.

1. Neustadt violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-100, which prohibits 

members of the California bar from threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an 

advantage in a civil dispute. Specifically, the defendant's brief opposing summary judgment 

asserted that Tetyana violated federal immigration and criminal law and argued that the Court

should refer the matter to law enforcement for investigation. Dkt. No. 96 at 24. Instead of 

withdrawing these assertions, Neustadt's response to the order to show cause reaffirmed them,

declaring, in fact, that Neustadt presented these allegations not just to the Court but also 

separately to law enforcement. Dkt. No. 112 at 7.

Not only were these allegations inappropriate, they were also nonresponsive to the 

motion being briefed. Neustadt raised these claims as a purported defense to Edward's liability 

in a motion that focused solely on the question of how much Edward owed Tetyana in damages. 

The Court had already ruled on the issue of liability. Dkt. Nos. 55, 108.

Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 133 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 3
2

Moreover, the evidence of Tetyana's alleged crime is ambiguous and unverifiable at best. 

The lack of adequate evidentiary support for these serious allegations on its own justifies 

sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

2. Neustadt's misconduct continued in his response to the Court's order to show cause. 

In his response, Neustadt's lead argument was that it would have been a crime for him not to 

make the criminal accusations against Tetyana under 18 U.S.C. § 4, which is the criminal statute 

prohibiting misprision of felony. Dkt. No. 112. However, two minutes of research would have 

revealed to Neustadt that, to commit misprision of felony, a person must take an affirmative act 

to conceal a crime – mere silence is not enough. See United States v. Phillips, 827 F.3d 1171, 

1174-75 (9th Cir. 2016); United States v. Ciambrone, 750 F.2d 1416, 1418 (9th Cir. 1984). And

even after Tetyana's response to the order to show cause made this point, and after the Court 

asked Neustadt whether he wished to withdraw his misprision argument at the hearing on the 

order to show cause, Neustadt declined to retract it – while admitting that he came upon 18 

U.S.C. § 4 in researching "defenses" to the order to show cause. By asserting and continuing to 

press a plainly frivolous argument, Neustadt violated Rule 11 once again.

Thus, Neustadt violated Rule 11 at least twice: first in his motion papers – by advancing 

arguments in bad faith and for an improper purpose, without adequate evidentiary support – and 

then in his response to the order to show cause – by making a frivolous argument in his defense 

and pressing that argument in bad faith despite being on notice of how frivolous it was. 

Accordingly, Neustadt is ordered to pay $500 in monetary sanctions. Neustadt's check should be 

made payable to the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of California. Payment must be 

received by the Clerk within 21 days of this order. In addition, Neustadt will be referred to the 

State Bar of California for further investigation of his conduct.

3. The order to show cause is lifted as to Edward, since it appears that he is not 

responsible for his counsel's misconduct.

Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 133 Filed 04/04/18 Page 2 of 3
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 133 Filed 04/04/18 Page 3 of 3