149 lawyer defedants memo

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

LAWYER DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF SUPP. MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC

CASE NO.: 13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM

- 1 -

PESTOTNIK + GOLD LLP Timothy R. Pestotnik, State Bar No. 128919 [email protected] Russell A. Gold, State Bar No. 179498 [email protected] Russell F. Winslow, State Bar No. 245031 [email protected] 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1025 San Diego, California 92101 Tel: (619) 237-5080 Fax: (619) 342-8020 Attorneys for Defendants William Hargreaves; Hargreaves & Taylor, LLP (erroneously sued as Hargraeves & Taylor, PC); Meredith Levin; Law Offices of Allen-Slattery, Inc.; Janis Stocks; Stocks & Colburn (erroneously sued as Stocks & Colburn, a professional corporation); Carole Baldwin; Laury Baldwin; and Baldwin & Baldwin (collectively, the Lawyer Defendants)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

))))))))))))) ))))))))

Case No. 13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM LAWYER DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [F.R.C.P. 8(a)(2); 9(b); 12(b)(6); 41(b)] [SPECIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE ORDERED; NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED] Date: June 6, 2014 Time: 2:00p.m. Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo Courtroom 4C

TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 6, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4C

of the above captioned United States District Court for the Southern District of

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 149-1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 7

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 - LAWYER DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF SUPP. MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC


California, before the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, located at 221 West

Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, defendants (1) William Hargreaves,

(2) Hargreaves & Taylor LLP (erroneously sued as Hargraeves & Taylor, PC);

(3) Meredith Levin; (4) Law Offices of Allen-Slattery, Inc.; (5) Janis Stocks; (6) Stocks

& Colburn (erroneously sued as Stocks & Colburn, a professional corporation); (7)

Laury Baldwin; (8) Carole Baldwin; and (9) Baldwin & Baldwin (collectively referred

to herein as the Lawyer Defendants), by and through their undersigned counsel, will

and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2),

9(b), 12(b)(6), and 41(b) for an order dismissing Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint

(FAC) against the Lawyer Defendants, with prejudice, on the following grounds:

Plaintiffs FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), because plaintiffs claims do not state facts sufficient to state a

claim for relief against the Lawyer Defendants. Moreover, plaintiffs claims against the

Lawyer Defendants are time barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Plaintiffs

FAC also fails to plead certain matters with particularity, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

9(b). Further, plaintiffs FAC fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which

requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief. Further, plaintiffs failed to comply with the Courts order dated December 23,

2013, and therefore, the FAC should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.41(b). For

these reasons, the Lawyer Defendants move the Court to dismiss all claims alleged in

the FAC against the Lawyer Defendants.

Plaintiffs entire FAC should be dismissed with prejudice as to the Lawyer

Defendants, including each of the claims and counts which purport to name such

defendants as follows:

Civil Rights Claims

- Claim 1.12, Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and

Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC 286-299];

- Claim 1.13, Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and


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



Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC 300-309];

- Count 3, Malicious Prosecution, Obstruction of Justice - Deprivation of Rights

under Color of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC 349-

352];

- Claim 9.1, Preventing Officer from Performing Duties, 42 U.S.C. 1985(1)

and Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC 765-773];

- Claim 9.2, Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights, Deprivation of Rights

under Color of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) and Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC

774-789];


under Color of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)(a) and Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC

790-793];


under Color of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)(b) and Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC

794-797];


under Color of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)(c) and Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC

798-801];

- Count 10, Failure to Prevent or Aid in Preventing Deprivation of

Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C. 1986 and Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC

802-807];

- Count 12, Deprivation of Substantive Due Process, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Cal.

Const. art. I, 26 [FAC 889-895];

- Count 13, Trespass under Color of Law, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Cal. Const. art.

I, 26 [FAC 896-900];

California Law Tort Claims

- Claim 2.1, Assault and Battery; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 [FAC 310-

313];


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



- Claim 2.3, Wrongful Inducement to Breach Contract, Covenant of Good Faith

and Fair Dealing, Wrongful Interference with Prospective Contractual

Relations , and Defamation [FAC 319-322];

- Claim 2.4, Interference with Economic Relations, Wrongful Interference with

Existing and Prospective Economic Relations, and Defamation [FAC 323-

330];

- Claim 2.5, Defamation [FAC 331-337];

- Claim 2.6, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress [FAC 338-341];

- Claim 2.7, Inducement to Breach of Contract, Covenant of Good Faith and

Fair Dealing - Deprivation of Substantive Due Process pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, 26 [FAC 342-348];

Lanham Act Claim

- Count 15, False Designation of Origin, False Description, Lanham Act 15

U.S.C. 1125 [FAC 904-914];

RICO Claims

- RICO Enterprise 1, California Domestic Dispute Industry Criminal Enterprise

[FAC 929-930];

- RICO Enterprise 2, San Diego Family Law Community Domestic Dispute

Industry Criminal Enterprise [FAC 931-936];

- Racketeering Count 2, Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. 1346), 18 U.S.C.

1962 (c) & (d) [FAC 1031-1038];

- Racketeering Count 3, Kidnapping (Cal. Penal Code 207(a), (c), 209(a),

236), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC 1039-1044];

- Racketeering Claim for Relief 3.1, Kidnapping (Cal. Penal Code 207(a)),

[FAC 1045-1048];

- Racketeering Claim for Relief 3.6, Kidnapping (Cal. Penal Code 236), [FAC

1066-1069];

- Racketeering Claim for Relief 5.1, Obstruction of Justice; Influencing 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



Injuring Officer or Juror (18 U.S.C. 1503), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC

1083-1086];

- Racketeering Claim for Relief 5.2, Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. 1505),

18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC 1087-1090];

- Racketeering Claim for Relief 5.3, Tampering with a witness, victim or

informant (18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(2)(A)), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC

1091-1094];


informant (18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(2)(B),(C)), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC

1095-1098];


informant (18 U.S.C. 1512(b)), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC 1099-

1102];


informant (18 U.S.C. 1512(c)) [FAC 1103-1106];


informant (18 U.S.C. 1512(c)), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC 1107-

1114];


informant (18 U.S.C. 1512(d)), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC 1115-

1118];

- Racketeering Claim for Relief 5.9, Retaliating against a witness, victim or an

informant (18 U.S.C. 1513(b)), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC 1119-

1122];

- Racketeering Claim for Relief 5.10, Retaliating against a witness, victim or an

informant other harm (18 U.S.C. 1513(e)), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d)

[FAC 1123-1126];

- Racketeering Claim for Relief 5.11, Conspiracy to retaliate against a witness,


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



victim or an informant (18 U.S.C. 1513(f)), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d)

[FAC 1127-1130];

- Racketeering Count 6, Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering (18 U.S.C.

1959), 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) & (d) [FAC 1131-1134];

- Racketeering Count 7, RICO Aiding and Abetting, 18 U.S.C. (2)(a)-(b) and

1962 (c) [FAC 1135-1140];

- Racketeering Count 8, Aiding and Abetting a RICO Section 1962(d)

Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. (2)(a)-(b) and 1962 (c)-(d) [FAC 1141-1151];

- Racketeering Count 9, Conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) [FAC

1152-1164];

- Racketeering Count 10, Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy to Contravene 18

U.S.C. 1962 (c) [FAC 1165-1176];

- Racketeering Count 11, Petition for Orders Dissolving RICO Enterprises 18

U.S.C. 1964 (a)-(b) [FAC 1177-1180];

Claims for Prospective Relief

- Federal Indictable Civil Rights Offenses or FICRO COUNTS 1-22 [FAC

1181-1191];

- Prospective Relief Count 1, Motion for Harassment Protective Order 18

U.S.C. 1514(b) [FAC 1192-1197];

- Prospective Relief Count 2, Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2201 [FAC 1198-1203].

The Lawyer Defendants also expressly join the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, filed by defendant San Diego County Bar

Association on behalf of all defendants, filed on March 28, 2014, together will all

supporting pleadings [DKT. No. 131] (collectively, the Omnibus Motion).

This Motion is based upon this notice of motion and motion, the accompanying

memorandum of points and authorities, plaintiffs FAC, the Omnibus Motion, on such

pleadings and files of the Court of which the Lawyer Defendants (and all defendants)


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



may request the Court take judicial notice, and upon such other pleadings and oral and

documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the time of the hearing on this

motion.

Respectfully submitted, April 11, 2014 PESTOTNIK + GOLD LLP

s/ Timothy R. Pestotnik Timothy R. Pestotnik Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants William Hargreaves; Hargreaves & Taylor, LLP (erroneously sued as Hargraeves & Taylor, PC); Meredith Levin; Law Offices of Allen-Slattery, Inc. (erroneously sued as Allen Slattery, Inc.); Janis Stocks; Stocks & Colburn(erroneously sued as Stocks & Colburn, a professional corporation); Carole Baldwin; Laury Baldwin; and Baldwin & Baldwin


149 lawyer defedants memo

Documents