11-3 Appellants' Excerpts of The Record, Vol I of II

Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014
ID: 9287311
DktEntry: 11-3
Page: 1 of 107 (96 of 514)
&DVH1R

81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6

)257+(1,17+&,5&8,7

&$/,)251,$&2$/,7,21)25)$0,/,(6$1'&+,/'5(1
3%&D'HODZDUHSXEOLFEHQHILWFRUSRUDWLRQ&2/%(51&678$57,,,

3ODLQWLIIV$SSHOODQWV

Y

6$1',(*2&2817<%$5$662&,$7,21HWDO

'HIHQGDQWV$SSHOOHHV

$SSHDO)URP7KH8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW
)RU7KH6RXWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD
&DVH1RFY&$%-/%
7KH+RQRUDEOH&DWK\$QQ%HQFLYHQJR

(;&(53762)5(&25'2)$33(//$176
92/80(,2),,

&ROEHUQ&6WXDUW,,,-'
3UHVLGHQW&DOLIRUQLD&RDOLWLRQ
IRU)DPLOLHVDQG&KLOGUHQ3%&
3DFLILF+LJKZD\6WH
6DQ'LHJR&$
7HOHSKRQH
&ROH6WXDUW#/H[HYLDFRP
Plaintiff-Appellant In Pro Se
'HDQ%URZQLQJ:HEE(VT
/DZ2IILFHVRI'HDQ%URZQLQJ
:HEE
(WK6W
9DQFRXYHU:$
7HOHSKRQH
5,&2PDQ#DROFRP
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
California Coalition
for Families and Children, PBC

Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014
ID: 9287311
DktEntry: 11-3
Page: 2 of 107 (97 of 514)
,1'(;
'RF1R )LOH'DWH
'HVFULSWLRQ
9ROXPH 3DJH

1RWLFH2I$SSHDO
,
(5

-XGJPHQWLQD&LYLO&DVH
,
(5
,
(5

2UGHU'LVPLVVLQJ&DVH:LWK
3UHMXGLFH'HQ\LQJ3ODLQWLIIV
0RWLRQIRU3UHOLPLQDU\,QMXQFWLRQ
DQG'HQ\LQJ'HIHQGDQWV0RWLRQIRU
6DQFWLRQV

0LQXWH2UGHUFRQWLQXLQJKHDULQJVRQ
,
(5
PRWLRQIRUSUHOLPLQDU\LQMXQFWLRQ
DQGVDQFWLRQV

2UGHU'HQ\LQJ3ODLQWLIIV0RWLRQWR
,
(5
7DNH(DUO\'LVFRYHU\RI6WHSKHQ
/XFDV
,
(5

'RFNHWVKHHWHQWU\IRU
KHDULQJUHIOHFWLQJGLVWULFWFRXUWV
GHQLDORI3ODLQWLIIV0RWLRQIRU5XOH
6DQFWLRQVQXQFSURWXQWR

7UDQVFULSWRI3URFHHGLQJV
,
(5
0RWLRQ+HDULQJ
,
(5

2UGHU*UDQWLQJLQ3DUWDQG'HQ\LQJ
,Q3DUW'HIHQGDQWV6DQ'LHJR
6XSHULRU&RXUW'HIHQGDQWV
&RPPLVVLRQRQ-XGLFLDO
3HUIRUPDQFH'HIHQGDQWV0RWLRQVWR
'LVPLVV'HQ\LQJ'HIHQGDQW
6XSHULRU&RXUWV0RWLRQ)RU
6DQFWLRQV

7UDQVFULSWRI3URFHHGLQJV
,
(5
0RWLRQ+HDULQJ
,
(5

2UGHU'HQ\LQJDV0RRW&ROEHUQ
6WXDUWV([3DUWH0RWLRQIRU/HDYH
WR)LOH0RWLRQIRU:LWQHVV
+DUDVVPHQW3URWHFWLYH2UGHU

2UGHU'LUHFWLQJ&RXUW&OHUNWR6HDO
,
(5
&RPSODLQW
Case: 14-56140

10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
DktEntry: 11-3
2EMHFWLRQVWRDQG0RWLRQWR6WULNH
'HFODUDWLRQRI6WHSKHQ/XFDV
2PQLEXV0HPRUDQGXP5HTXHVWIRU
-XGLFLDO1RWLFH
([KLELWV$%WR2EMHFWLRQVWRDQG
0RWLRQWR6WULNH'HFODUDWLRQRI
6WHSKHQ/XFDV2PQLEXV
0HPRUDQGXP5HTXHVWIRU-XGLFLDO
1RWLFH
7DEOHRI&RQWHQWVIURP3ODLQWLIIV
-RLQW2SSRVLWLRQWR2PQLEXV0RWLRQ
WR'LVPLVV)LUVW$PHQGHG
&RPSODLQW-RLQGHUV
)LUVW$PHQGHG&RPSODLQW
([3DUWH$SSOLFDWLRQIRU/HDYHWR
)LOH0RWLRQIRU+DUDVVPHQW
5HVWUDLQLQJ2UGHU'HFODUDWLRQRI
&ROEHUQ6WXDUWLQ6XSSRUW
Page: 3 of 107 (98 of 514)
,,

,,

,,

,,
,,

Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
193 Filed
DktEntry:
07/14/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1 of
4 of
60107 (99 of 514)

&ROEHUQ&6WXDUW,,,
(PDLO&ROH6WXDUW#/H[HYLDFRP
3DFLILF+LJKZD\6WH
6DQ'LHJR&$
7HOHSKRQH
)DFVLPLOH
,Q3UR6H

'HDQ%URZQLQJ:HEESURKDFYLFH
(PDLO5,&2PDQ#DROFRP
/DZ2IILFHVRI'HDQ%URZQLQJ:HEE
(WK6W
9DQFRXYHU:$
7HOHSKRQH

$WWRUQH\IRU3ODLQWLII&DOLIRUQLD&RDOLWLRQIRU)DPLOLHVDQG&KLOGUHQ3%&

81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857

6287+(51',675,&72)&$/,)251,$

&$/,)251,$&2$/,7,21)25
&DVH1RFY&$%-/%
)$0,/,(6$1'&+,/'5(13%&
DQG&2/%(51&678$57

127,&(2)35(/,0,1$5<

3ODLQWLIIV
,1-81&7,21$33($/$33($/2)

),1$/-8'*0(17

Y

6$1',(*2&2817<%$5

$662&,$7,21HWDO

'HIHQGDQWV
&RPSODLQW)LOHG$XJXVW

1RWLFHLVKHUHE\JLYHQWKDW3ODLQWLIIV&$/,)251,$&2$/,7,21)25
)$0,/,(6$1'&+,/'5(13%&DQG&2/%(51&678$57,,,LQWKHDERYH
QDPHGFDVHKHUHE\DSSHDOWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV&RXUWRI$SSHDOVIRUWKH1LQWK&LUFXLW
IURP

7KH2UGHU'HQ\LQJ3ODLQWLIIV0RWLRQIRU3UHOLPLQDU\,QMXQFWLRQHQWHUHGLQ
WKLVFDVHRQ-XO\25'(5'RF1R([KLELWKHUHWR

ER 1
1272)35(/,0,1-$33($/$33($/2)),1$/-8'*0(17
&9&$%-/%
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
193 Filed
DktEntry:
07/14/14
11-3 Page
Page:
2 of
5 of
60107(100 of 514)

7KH-8'*0(17,1$&,9,/&$6(25'(5'RF1R([KLELW
KHUHWRDQGUHODWHGSRUWLRQVRIWKH2UGHU'LVPLVVLQJ&DVH:LWK3UHMXGLFH25'(5

'RF1R([KLELWKHUHWRERWKHQWHUHGLQWKLVFDVHRQ-XO\DQGDOO
LQWHUORFXWRU\DFWVDQGRUGHUVWKDWJDYHULVHWRWKHMXGJPHQWLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHG
WRWKHIROORZLQJ

$7KH0D\25'(5'(1<,1*3/$,17,))6027,2172
7$.(($5/<',6&29(5<25'(5'RF1R([KLELWKHUHWR

%7KH'HFHPEHU2UGHU*UDQWLQJLQ3DUWDQG'HQ\LQJLQ3DUW

'HIHQGDQWV0RWLRQVWR'LVPLVV&RPSODLQW25'(5'RF1R([KLELW

KHUHWRDVWRWKHIROORZLQJLVVXHV

L7KHGLVPLVVDOZLWKSUHMXGLFHRI3ODLQWLII6WXDUWVFODLPVDJDLQVWWKH

&RPPLVVLRQRQ-XGLFLDO3HUIRUPDQFHDQGDJDLQVWLWVRIILFLDOV6LPLDQG

%DWWVRQWRWKHH[WHQWWKHODWWHUDUHVXHGIRUGDPDJHVLQWKHLURIILFLDO

FDSDFLW\86&RQVW$PHQG;,Ricotta v. California)6XSSG

6'&DO&DO&RQVW$UW,9+25'(5'RF

1R([KLELWKHUHWRS

LL7KHGLVPLVVDOZLWKSUHMXGLFHRI3ODLQWLII6WXDUWVFODLPVDJDLQVWWKH

GHIHQGDQWMXGJHVIRUGDPDJHVDULVLQJRXWRIMXGLFLDODFWVZLWKLQWKH

MXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHLUFRXUWVAshelman v. Pope)GWK

&LU25'(5'RF1R([KLELWKHUHWRSDQG

&'LVWULFW-XGJH&DWK\$QQ%HQFLYHQJRV0DUFKDGPRQLVKPHQWWR

QRQDSSHDULQJFRFRXQVHOIRU3ODLQWLII&DOLIRUQLD&RDOLWLRQ0U$GDP%UDP

UHJDUGLQJ0U%UDPVLQWHQWWRILOHD1RWLFHRI$SSHDUDQFHRQEHKDOIRI

ER 2
1272)35(/,0,1-$33($/$33($/2)),1$/-8'*0(17
&9&$%-/%
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
193 Filed
DktEntry:
07/14/14
11-3 Page
Page:
3 of
6 of
60107(101 of 514)

&DOLIRUQLD&RDOLWLRQ7UDQVFULSWRI3URFHHGLQJVIURP0DUFK0RWLRQ
+HDULQJ([KLELWKHUHWRSS
'7KH'LVWULFW&RXUWV6HSWHPEHU2UGHU25'(5'RF1R
([KLELWKHUHWRDQG$XJXVW2UGHUWRVHDOSODLQWLIIVFRPSODLQW
'RF1R([KLELWKHUHWRGHQ\LQJ$602273ODLQWLIIV([3DUWH
$SSOLFDWLRQIRU/HDYHWR)LOH0RWLRQIRU+DUDVVPHQW5HVWUDLQLQJ2UGHU
(7KH0DUFK0LQXWH2UGHUGHQ\LQJ0RWLRQIRU6DQFWLRQVDJDLQVW

'HIHQGDQWVILOHGE\SODLQWLII&ROEHUQ6WXDUW25'(5'RF1R([KLELW

KHUHWRDQG7UDQVFULSWRI3URFHHGLQJVIURP0DUFK0RWLRQ

+HDULQJ([KLELWKHUHWRSS

)7KH'LVWULFW&RXUWVGHQLDORI3ODLQWLIIVUHTXHVWIRUFRXQWHUVDQFWLRQVLQ

VXFFHVVIXOO\RSSRVLQJWKH6XSHULRU&RXUWVPRWLRQIRUVDQFWLRQV25'(5

'RF1R([KLELWKHUHWRS

5HVSHFWIXOO\6XEPLWWHG
'$7('-XO\

%\V Colbern
C. Stuart

III

&ROEHUQ&6WXDUW,,,3UHVLGHQW
&DOLIRUQLD&RDOLWLRQIRU)DPLOLHVDQG
&KLOGUHQ3%&LQ3UR6H

'$7('-XO\

%\V Dean
Browning

Webb
'HDQ%URZQLQJ:HEE

$WWRUQH\VDQG&RXQVHORUVDW/DZIRU
3ODLQWLII&DOLIRUQLD&RDOLWLRQ)RU
)DPLOLHVDQG&KLOGUHQ, 3%&D'HODZDUH
3XEOLF%HQHILW&RUSRUDWLRQ

ER 3
1272)35(/,0,1-$33($/$33($/2)),1$/-8'*0(17
&9&$%-/%
Case:
14-56140
10/22/2014
ID: 9287311
11-3 Page
Page:1 7ofof2 107(102 of 514)
Case
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
Document
192 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
United States District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN., a
Delaware Public Benefit Corporation,
and COLBERN C. STUART, an
individual,
Civil Action No. 13CV1944-CAB-BLM

Plaintiff,
V.
San Diego County Bar Association, a

California Corporation
** See Attachment for additional
Defendants**
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Defendant.
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried
or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Due to plaintiffs inabilityor unwillingnessto file a complaint that complies with Rule 8, the court
finds that granting further leave to amend would unduly prejudice defendants. Accordingly,
defendants pending motions to dismiss are granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.
Date:
7/9/14
CLERK OF COURT
JOHN MORRILL, Clerk of Court
By: s/ Y. Barajas
Y. Barajas, Deputy
ER 4
Case:
14-56140
10/22/2014
ID: 9287311
11-3 Page
Page:2 8ofof2 107(103 of 514)
Case
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
Document
192 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
United States District Court

(ATTACHMENT)
Civil Action No. 13CV1944-CAB-BLM
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN., a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation,
and COLBERN C. STUART, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, a California Corporation; WILLIAM D. GORE, an individual,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal entity; SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, a
municipal entity; ROBERT J. TRENTACOSTA, an individual; MICHAEL RODDY, an individual;
JUDICIAL COUNCIL, a municipal entity; STEVEN JAHR, an individual; ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
THE COURTS, a municipal entity; TANI G. CANTILSAKAUYE, an individual; COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, a municipal entity; LAWRENCE J. SIMI, an individual; BRAD BATSON, an
individual; NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCE, a California Corporation; LISA
SCHALL, an individual; LORNA ALKSNE, an individual; OFF DUTY OFFICERS, INC., a business entity of
unknown form; CHRISTINE GOLDSMITH, an individual; JEANNIE LOWE, an individual; WILLIAM
MCADAM, an individual; EDLENE MCKENZIE, an individual; JOEL WOHLFEIL, an individual;
MICHAEL GROCH, an individual; EMILY GARSON, an individual; JAN GOLDSMITH, an individual;
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal entity; CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, a corporation;
KRISTINE P. NESTHUS, an individual; BRIAN WATKINS, an individual; KEN SMITH, an individual
MARILOU MARCQ, an individual; CSB-INVESTIGATIONS, an entity of unknown form; CAROLE
BALDWIN, an individual; LAURY BALDWIN, an individual; BALDWIN AND BALDIWN, a California
professional corporation; LARRY CORRIGAN, an individual; WILLIAM HARGRAEVES, an individual;
HARGRAEVES & TAYLOR, PC, a California Professional Corporation; TERRY CHUCAS, an individual;
MERIDITH LEVIN, an individual; ALLEN SLATTERY, INC., a California Corporation, a Corporation;
JANIS STOCKS, an individual; STOCKS & COLBURN, a California professional corporation; DR.
STEPHEN DOYNE, an individual; DR. STEPHEN DOYNE, INC., a professional corporation; SUSAN
GRIFFIN, an individual; DR. LORI LOVE, an individual; LOVE AND ALVAREZ PSYCHOLOGY, INC., a
California corporation; ROBERT A. SIMON, PH.D, an individual; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSIC
EXAMINERS INSTITUTE, a business entity of unknown form; ROBERT OBLOCK, an individual; LORI
CLARK VIVIANO, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF LORI CLARK VIVIANO, a business entity of
unknown form; SHARON BLANCHET, an individual; ASHWORTH, BLANCHET, KRISTENSEN, &
KALEMENKARIAN, a California Professional Corporation; MARILYN BIERER, an individual; BIERER
AND ASSOCIATES, a California Professional Corporation; JEFFREY FRITZ, an individual; BASIE AND
FRITZ, a professional corporation, and DOE Defendants herein enumerated,
Defendants.
ER 5
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
191 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:1 9ofof7 107(104 of 514)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

FAMILIES AND CHILDREN and
COLBERN C. STUART,
vs.
Plaintiffs,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR

ASSOCIATION et al.,
CASE NO. 13-cv-1944-CAB (JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE, DENYING
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
Defendants.
18
19
20
This matter comes before the court on the omnibus motion to dismiss filed by
21 defendant San Diego County Bar Association and on the joinders and supplemental
22 motions of additional defendants. [Doc. Nos. 131, 134-135, 137-152.] Also before the
23 court is plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and certain defendants motion
24 for sanctions. [Doc. Nos. 109, 160.]
25
26
BACKGROUND
This action was initiated in August 2013. [Doc. No. 1.] The original complaint
27 totaled 175 pages (plus 1156 pages of exhibits) and named about fifty defendants. After
28 hearing oral argument on several defendants motions to dismiss, the court dismissed
ER 6
-1-
13cv1944
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311
191 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:210
of of
7 107
(105 of 514)
1 the original complaint with leave to amend. The complaint was dismissed as to the two
2 corporate plaintiffs, Lexevia, PC and California Coalition for Families and Children,
3 because corporations must appear in court through an attorney. D-Deam Ltd. PShip
4 v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004); CivLR 83.3(k). The
5 court dismissed plaintiff Colbern C. Stuarts claims because he failed to comply with
6 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In affording plaintiffs leave to amend,
7 the court noted that while Stuart proceeds pro se, he was formerly a licensed attorney
8 with a complex litigation practice and should be capable of crafting a complaint in
9 compliance with Rule 8.
10
Stuart and California Coalition filed their amended complaint on January 9,
11 2014.1 [Doc. No. 90.] California Coalition is now represented by counsel Dean
12 Browning Webb. Plaintiffs amended complaint totals 251 pages, with 1397 more
13 pages in exhibits. The allegations generally relate to four occurrences: Stuarts
14 dissolution proceedings, his criminal prosecution, events at a San Diego County Bar
15 Association seminar, and defendants demands that Stuart remove references to judges
16 home addresses in the original complaint. About sixty defendants are named, some of
17 whom are referenced only several times throughout the complaints 1200-plus
18 paragraphs. For instance, defendant Steven Jahr, identified as the Administrative
19 Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, is mentioned by name in only seven
20 paragraphs. [Id. 12, 698, 700, 702, 738, 915k, 931.] Similarly, the only factual
21 allegations against defendant Meredith Levin are that she is an attorney licensed to
22 practice in California and an organizer of the SDCBA seminar. [Id. 43, 110, 152,
23 915nn.]
24
Plaintiffs divide their complaint into fifteen counts, an additional eleven RICO
25 counts, and two counts for prospective relief. Each of the first fifteen counts is further
26 divided into claims. For example, Count 1 is broken down into Claims 1.1 through
27 1.13. In total, plaintiffs assert about 75 claims in their first 15 counts.
28
1
Lexevia is no longer a party.
ER 7
-2-
13cv1944
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311
191 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:311
of of
7 107
(106 of 514)
Some of plaintiffs assertions are so implausible as to be offensive. For instance,
2 plaintiffs accuse well over fifty defendants (including judges, attorneys, doctors, social
3 workers, and law-enforcement officers) of conspiring to commit racketeering activity
4 including enticement into slavery, sale into involuntary servitude, transportation of
5 slaves, and service on vessels in slave trade, 18 U.S.C. 1583-1586. [Id. 1000.]
6
Further, as with the original complaint, plaintiffs fill the amended complaint with
7 their unique acronyms,2 defined terms,3 and terms with no discernable meaning.4 Look
8 for instance at paragraphs 683 and 684:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
683. ALKSNE further maintained supervisory responsibility over each

STUART ASSAULT COORDINATOR, the PREPARATION
AND PLANNING of the SDCBA SEMINAR, and in the conduct
and operation of the SD-DDICE, DDI-FICE, DDI-IACE, and
STUART-AHCE ENTERPRISES. She is further a principal
conductor and participant of the DDICE, the SD-DDICE, DDIFICE, DDI-IACE, and supervisor of all San Diego affiliates and
participants thereof.
684. On information and belief, ALKSNE CULPABLY and
UNREASONABLY failed to perform her own PROFESSIONAL
DUTIES and one or more SUPERVISORY DUTY over her
subordinates, setting in motion the subordinates acts as elsewhere
2
Plaintiffs acronyms include: AHCE (Ad Hoc Criminal Enterprise), DDI (Domestic
17 Dispute Industry), DDIA (Domestic Dispute Industry Advocates), DDICE (Domestic Dispute
Criminal Enterprise), DDI-FICE (Domestic Dispute Industry Forensic Investigator), DDI-IACE
18 (Domestic Dispute Industry Intervention Advocate Criminal Enterprise), DDIJO (Domestic
Dispute Industry Judicial Official), DDISO (Domestic Dispute Industry Security Officers), DDISW
19 (Domestic Dispute Industry Social Workers), DDIL (Domestic Dispute Industry Litigants),
DVILS (Domestic Violence Intervention Legislative Scheme), FFR (Family Federal Rights),
20 FFRRESA (Federal Family Rights Reform, Exercise, Support, and Advocacy), FICRO (Federal
21
Indictable Civil Rights Offenses), and SAD (Scheme and Artifice to Defraud).
3
For instance, plaintiffs provide their own definitions for the following terms: ACCESS TO
22 JUSTICE, ASSOCIATION, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, CHILL, CLAIM AND DEMAND,

COLOR OF LAW DEFENDANTS, COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, COMMERCIAL SPEECH,
23 CRUEL AND/OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, CULPABLY, DOMESTIC RELATIONS CLASS,
DOYNE TERRORISM, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, ENGAGEMENT, EQUAL
24 PROTECTION CLASSES, ENTERPRISE ALLEGATIONS, EXCESSIVE FORCE, EXPRESSION,

FALSE IMPRISONMENT, HARASSMENT AND ABUSE, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,
25 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE PIT, PLANNING AND DELIVERY, POSITION UNDER THE
UNITED STATES, PRIVACY, PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT,
26 PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, STUART ASSAULT, STUART

ASSAULT COORDINATOR, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, SUPERVISING DEFENDANTS,
27 and UNREASONABLY.
28
Plaintiffs repeatedly use terms like black hat, false flag, kite bombs, paperwads, and
poser advocacy.
ER 8
-3-
13cv1944
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311
191 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:412
of of
7 107
(107 of 514)
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
alleged, depriving Plaintiffs of rights as elsewhere alleged, causing

injury in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.
[Doc. No. 90 683, 684] (capitalization in original). To understand these paragraphs,
one must flip back and forth to obtain definitions of terms defined in paragraphs 152
(STUART ASSAULT COORDINATOR), 931 (SD-DDICE), 940 (DDI-FICE), 937
(DDI-IACE), 944 (STUART AHCE), 147 (CULPABLY and UNREASONABLY), and
637 (SUPERVISORY DUTIES).5
Defendants often cant determine whether claims are asserted against them. One
cause of defendants trouble is plaintiffs inconsistent definitions. For instance,
plaintiffs first define the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS as defendants Emily
Garson, Jan Goldsmith, and Christine Goldsmith, but later expand that group to also
include Judges Wohlfeil and Schall. [Id. 349, 383.] Thus, Judges Wohlfeil and
Schall cannot be sure whether Claim 3.6, asserted against all CITY ATTORNEY
DEFENDANTS, is asserted against them. [Id. 498.] Similarly, plaintiffs sometime
identify a particular group of defendants in a claim heading, then modify that group in
the ensuing paragraph. For instance, the defendants identified in the header for
plaintiffs Racketeering Claim for Relief 3.2 are CITY ATTORNEY
DEFENDANTS, GROCH, GORE, but the ensuing paragraph additionally identifies
the SDCBA. [Id. 1049.]
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS
After the amended complaint was filed, the court held a case management
conference and established a briefing schedule for defendants motions to dismiss.
[Doc. No. 107.] In accordance with that schedule, defendant San Diego County Bar
Association filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 131.] Two weeks later,
additional defendants filed joinders and supplemental motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs
responded in opposition to the motions, and defendants replied.
5
See U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 377 (7th Cir. 2003) (The
acronyms alone force readers to look elsewhere . . . . To understand the paragraph one would have
to read two exhibits and seventy-seven paragraphs scattered throughout the third amended
complaint!)
ER 9
-4-
13cv1944
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311
191 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:513
of of
7 107
(108 of 514)
In their motions to dismiss, defendants argue many grounds for dismissal, some
2 applicable to all defendants, some tailored to subsets or individual defendants. A

3 recurring contentionone which the court finds meritoriousis that the amended
4 complaint should be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
5 of Civil Procedure.
6
Rule 8 requires a pleader to put forth a short and plain statement of the claim
7 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). As this court
8 noted in its previous order dismissing the original complaint, the Ninth Circuit has
9 affirmed dismissal on Rule 8 grounds where the complaint is argumentative, prolix,
10 replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
11 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996), verbose, confusing and conclusory, Nevijel v. North Coast
12 Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981), or where it is impossible to designate
13 the cause or causes of action attempted to be alleged in the complaint, Schmidt v.
14 Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980). Further, the Ninth Circuit has
15 affirmed dismissal with prejudice for failure to obey a court order to file a short and
16 plain statement of the claim as required by Rule 8, even where the heightened standard
17 of pleading under Rule 9 applied. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (citing Schmidt, 614 F.2d
18 at 1223-24); see also Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 673.
19
Here, in dismissing the original complaint, the court noted that while Stuart
20 proceeds pro se, he was formerly a licensed member of the California bar with a
21 complex litigation practice. [Doc. No. 88 at 9.] Thus, the court informed Stuart of its
22 expectation that his amended complaint would comply with Rule 8. [Id.] Instead,
23 plaintiffs amended complaintwhich was signed by Stuart and by Dean Browning
24 Webb as attorney for California Coalitionis even longer than the original and remains
25 unmanageable, argumentative, confusing, and frequently incomprehensible. [Doc. No.
26 90.]
27
Plaintiffs repeated failure to comply with Rule 8(a) prejudices defendants, who
28 face the onerous task of combing through [plaintiffs lengthy complaint] just to prepare
ER 10
-5-
13cv1944
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311
191 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:614
of of
7 107
(109 of 514)
1 an answer that admits or denies such allegations and to determine what claims and
2 allegations must be defended or otherwise litigated. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen.
3 Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). And plaintiffs
4 noncompliance harms litigants in other matters pending before the court. Rule 8(a)
5 requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so that judges and adverse
6 parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud. Federal judges have better
7 things to do, and the substantial subsidy of litigation (court costs do not begin to cover
8 the expense of the judiciary) should be targeted on those litigants who take the
9 preliminary steps to assemble a comprehensible claim.
U.S. ex rel. Garst v.
10 Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003).6

CONCLUSION
11
12
Plaintiffs original complaint was dismissed in part for failure to comply with
13 Rule 8(a)s requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
14 pleader is entitled to relief. Though the court afforded plaintiffs an opportunity to
15 amend their complaint to comply with Rule 8, plaintiffs filed an equally unmanageable
16 amended complaint. Due to plaintiffs inabilityor unwillingnessto file a complaint
17 that complies with Rule 8, the court finds that granting further leave to amend would
18 unduly prejudice defendants. Accordingly, defendants pending motions to dismiss are
19 granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. In light of this dismissal, the court
20 denies plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 109.]
21
Finally, the court has reviewed the motion for sanctions filed by the Superior
22 Court of California, County of San Diego and the Administrative Office of the Courts.
23 [Doc. No. 160.] Although the court finds that plaintiffs amended complaint fails to
24 comply with Rule 8, and the amended submission is even more unmanageable than the
25 original (despite the courts admonishment that plaintiffs rid the pleading of its
26 voluminous surplusage and argumentative text), the court does not conclude that
27
6
District judges are busy, and therefore have a right to dismiss a complaint that is so long
28 that it imposes an undue burden on the judge, to the prejudice of other litigants seeking the judges
attention. Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 844 (7th Cir. 2013).
ER 11
-6-
13cv1944
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311
191 DktEntry:
Filed 07/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:715
of of
7 107
(110 of 514)
1 plaintiffs filing was made solely for the purpose of harassing the defendants or in
2 contempt of the courts order to file a Rule 8 compliant pleading. No monetary sanction
3 will be awarded, and the motion for sanctions is denied.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 DATED: July 8, 2014
7
CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ER 12
-7-
13cv1944
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311
189 DktEntry:
Filed 06/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:116
of of
1 107
(111 of 514)
MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case Name: California Coalition for Families and

Children, et al. v. San Diego County Bar
Association, et al.
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
Ct. Deputy Lori Hernandez
Case No:
13cv1944-CAB (JLB)
Rptr. Tape:
The court vacates the hearing on plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction [Doc.
No. 109] and on the motion for sanctions of defendant Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego [Doc. No. 160], previously set for June 27, 2014. The court will
issue a new scheduling order as to these motions, if necessary, following disposition
of the pending motions to dismiss.
Date:
June 9, 2014
Initials: dwg
ER 13
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311165 DktEntry:
Filed 05/21/14
11-3 Page:
Page 117ofof1 107
(112 of 514)
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13

FAMILIES AND CHILDREN and
COLBERN C. STUART,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS

MOTION TO TAKE EARLY
DISCOVERY
[Doc. No. 164]

ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
CASE NO. 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
Plaintiffs move for leave to take the deposition of Stephen D. Lucas, counsel for
16 defendant San Diego County Bar Association. [Doc. No. 164.] Plaintiffs argue that
17 good cause supports the requested relief because, they contend, Mr. Lucas made
18 improper representations in the memorandum in support of defendants omnibus motion
19 to dismiss and in his declaration. [Id. at 3.]
20
No cause exists for the requested relief. If any party has submitted material
21 inappropriate at this stage for consideration, the court will not consider it. Plaintiffs
22 motion [Doc. No. 164] is denied.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25 DATED: May 21, 2014
26
27

28
ER 14
-1-
13cv1944
7/10/2014
CM/ECF
- casd Filed
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
193
DktEntry:
07/14/14
11-3 Page
Page:
5918
of of
60107
(113 of 514)
CLOSED,SEALDC
U.S. District Court

Southern District of California (San Diego)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
California Coalition for Families and Children. et al v. San Diego
County Bar Association et al
Assigned to: Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt
Demand: $9,999,000
Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Date Filed: 08/20/2013

Date Terminated: 07/09/2014
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt
Organization
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
California Coalition for Families and
Children.
a Delaware Corporation
represented by Eric W. Ching

402 W. Broadway, Ste 2500
San Diego, CA 92101
510-449-1091
Fax: 619-615-0904
Email: eching100@gmail.com
TERMINATED: 05/09/2014
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dean Browning Webb
The Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb
515 East 39th Street
Vancouver, WA 98663
(503)629-2176
Fax: (503)629-9527
Email: ricoman1968@aol.com
PRO HAC VICE
Plaintiff
Lexevia, PC
a California Professional Corporation
Plaintiff
Colbern C. Stuart
4891 Pacific Highway
Suite 102
San Diego, CA 92110
ER 15
https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?126195459686204-L_1_0-1
represented by Colbern C Stuart , III

Suite 102
San Diego, CA 92110
1/36
7/10/2014
CM/ECF
- casd Filed
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
193
DktEntry:
07/14/14
11-3 Page
Page:
6019
of of
60107
(114 of 514)
02/26/2014
108 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo: Case
g schedule is set by
y the
Management Conference held on 2/26/2014. Omnibus briefing
court. Further written order will follow. Pro se plaintiff
the court to address
p
requested
q
g
defendants filed by
y pplaintiff Colbern Stuart. The motion
39 Motion for Sanctions against
is denied NUNC PRO TUNC to 12/19/2013. A motion hearingg was held on
December 19, 2013 and at that hearing
g the court dismissed the complaint
p
in its entirety.
y
As such, all ppending
g motions were deemed withdrawn by the court (see docket entry 86
).(Court Reporter/ECR Mauralee Ramirez). (Plaintiff
Attorney Dean Webb and
(
Colbern Stuart (pro se)). (Defendant Attorney Stephen Lucas, Daniel Agle, Gregory
Goonan, Charles Grebing, Matthew Green, Rachael Mills, Lynn Feldner, Katherine
Weadock, Timothy Pestotnik, Ricky Sanchez, Thomas Schafbuch (telephonic
appearance), Kyle Van Dyke, Richard Wolfe, Mike Nardi, Steve Doyne and Charles
Taylor). (no document attached) (lmh) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
02/28/2014
109 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Domestic Violence Restraining

Orders: First Amend. by California Coalition for Families and Children.. (Attachments:
# 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Part 1 (Inc. Decl.), #
4 Exhibit Part 2, # 5 Exhibit Part 3, # 6 Exhibit Part 4, # 7 Exhibit Part 5, # 8 Exhibit
Part 6, # 9 Exhibit Part 7, # 10 Exhibit Part 8, # 11 Exhibit Part 9, # 12 Exhibit Part 10,
# 13 Exhibit Part 11, # 14 Exhibit Part 12, # 15 Exhibit Part 13, # 16 Exhibit Part 14, #
17 Exhibit Part 15, # 18 Exhibit Part 16, # 19 Exhibit Part 17, # 20 Exhibit Part 18, #
21 Exhibit Part 19, # 22 Exhibit Part 20, # 23 Exhibit Part 21, # 24 Exhibit Part 22, #
25 Exhibit Part 23, # 26 Exhibit Part 24)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 02/28/2014)
03/04/2014
110 MINUTE ORDER: On February 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction. [Doc. No. 109 .] In light of the current scheduling order regarding the
Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs first amended complaint, [Doc. No. 105 ] the
Court sets the following briefing schedule for plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction
[Doc. No. 109 ]: Responsive briefs will be filed no later than June 13, 2014; Plaintiffs
may file a reply brief no later than June 20, 2014. The hearing on Plaintiffs motion for
preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 109 ], currently set for April 22, 2014, is hereby
continued to June 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4C.(yeb) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
03/05/2014
111 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Stuart, Colbern) (sjt). (Entered: 03/05/2014)
03/05/2014
112 (Filed as Sealed Document 114 on 3/6/2014) SEALED LODGED Proposed

Document re: 111 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filed by
Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Stuart, Colbern)(sjt). (Main
Document 112 replaced on 3/6/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of lodgement on
3/6/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/05/2014)
03/06/2014
113 ORDER granting 111 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Mr. Ching shall file his
reply, if any, on or before March 12, 2014. Upon completion of the briefing, the Court
will take the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and no
personal appearances will be required. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn
Major on 3/6/2014. (sjt) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
03/11/2014
115 Notice of Document Discrepancies by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo Rejecting
ER 16
25/36
1 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:1 20
of 24
of 107
(115
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES)

AND CHILDREN,
)
)
PLAINTIFFS,
)
)
VS.
)
)
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,)
ET AL.,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
CASE NO.13CV1944-CAB(BLM)
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 26, 2014
MOTION HEARING
10
11
12
13
14
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
15
BEFORE THE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
OFFICIAL REPORTER:
24
25
ER 17
MAURALEE A. RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR

333 BROADWAY, SUITE 420
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
ORDERTRANSCRIPT@GMAIL.COM
619-994-2526
2 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:2 21
of 24
of 107
(116
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

COLBERN C. STUART,
III
COLBERN C. STUART, III

IN PRO SE
4891 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SUITE 102
FOR THE PLAINTIFF

CALIFORNIA COALITION
FOR FAMILIES AND
CHILDREN
DEAN BROWNING WEBB

THE LAW OFFICES OF DEAN BROWNING WEBB
515 EAST 39TH STREET
VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON 98663
FOR THE DEFENDANT

SUPERIOR COURT
OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, AND NAMED
JUDICIAL OFFICERS
MATTHEW L. GREEN
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
FOR THE DEFENDANT

COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE,
LAWRENCE J. SIMI,
BRAD BATSON
RICHARD F. WOLFE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 WEST "A" STREET, SUITE 1100
FOR THE DEFENDANT

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
BAR ASSOCIATION
STEPHEN D. LUCAS
LUCAS & HAVERKAMP
4350 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, SUITE 260
FOR THE DEFENDANT

SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPT.,
WILLIAM D, GORE
COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO
RICKY R. SANCHEZ
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
1600 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, ROOM 355
FOR THE DEFENDANT

NATIONAL FAMILY
JUSTICE CENTER
ALLIANCE
CHARLES R. GREBING
WINGERT GREBING BRUBAKER & JUSKIE LLP
600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
FOR THE DEFENDANT

BALDWIN & BALDWIN
CAROLE BALDWIN
LAURY BALDWIN
TIMOTHY R. PESTOTNIK
PESTOTNIK & GOLD LLP
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ER 18
3 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:3 22
of 24
of 107
(117
APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
FOR THE DEFENDANT

MARILYN BIERER
BIERER & ASSOCIATES
DANIEL S. AGLE
KLIENEDINST PC
FOR THE DEFENDANT

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
FORENSIC EXAMINERS
INSTITUTE, ROBERT
L. O'BLOCK
GREGORY P. GOONAN
THE AFFINITY LAW GROUP
5755 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 301
- AND THOMAS J. SCHAFBUCH
(TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE)
CENTER FOR NATIONAL THREAT ASSESSMENT
2750 EAST SUNSHINE STREET
SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 65807
FOR THE DEFENDANT

LOVE & ALVAREZ
PSYCHOLOGY, INC.
DR. LORI LOVE,
LARRY CORRIGAN
RACHAEL H. MILLS
OFFICES OF JAMES R. ROGERS
125 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE 101
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
FOR THE DEFENDANT

CITY OF SAN DIEGO
CHARLES TAYLOR
OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY
1200 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1100
FOR THE DEFENDANT

DR. ROBERT A. SIMON
KATHERINE WEADOCK
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
550 WEST C STREET, SUITE 800
FOR THE DEFENDANT

CHUBB GROUP OF
INSURANCE COMPANIES
MICHAEL NARDI
SELTZER CAPLAN MCMAHON VITEK
750 "B" STREET, SUITE 1200
FOR THE DEFENDANT

TERENCE CHUCAS
SUSAN GRIFFIN
J. LYNN FELDNER
MURCHISON & CUMMING LLP
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ER 19
4 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:4 23
of 24
of 107
(118
APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
FOR THE DEFENDANT:

JEFFREY FRITZ,
BASIE & FRITZ
KYLE VAN DYKE

HURST & HURST
4
5
ALSO PRESENT:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ER 20
ADAM GRAHAM
5 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:5 24
of 24
of 107
(119
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014; 2:00 P.M.
THE CLERK:
CALLING AT THIS TIME MATTER NO. 1 ON
CALENDAR, 13CV1944-CAB, CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND
CHILDREN, ET AL., VERSUS SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, ET
AL.
COULD I PLEASE HAVE COUNSEL STATE THEIR APPEARANCES,
BEGINNING WITH THE PLAINTIFFS.
MR. STUART:
MR. WEBB:
10
MY NAME IS COLBERN STUART.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, DEAN WEBB FOR
CCFC.
11
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
12
THE CLERK:
DEFENSE COUNSEL, PLEASE.
13
MS. WEADOCK:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
THANK YOU.
KATHERINE WEADOCK ON BEHALF OF
DR. SIMON.
MR. ZOPATTI:
CHRISTOPHER ZOPATTI ON BEHALF OF DR.
STEPHEN DOYNE AND DR. STEPHEN DOYNE, INCORPORATED.

MR. LUCAS:
STEVE LUCAS ON BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO
COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION.

MS. FELDNER:
LYNN FELDNER ON BEHALF OF TERENCE CHUCAS
AND SUSAN GRIFFIN.

MR. NARDI:
MICHAEL NARDI ON BEHALF OF THE CHUBB GROUP
OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.
MR. GOONAN:
GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
GREGORY
24
GOONAN ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS
25
INSTITUTE AND ROBERT L. O'BLOCK.
ER 21
6 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:6 25
of 24
of 107
(120
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
MR. GREEN:
MATTHEW GREEN
ON BEHALF OF THE 13 JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS APPEARING IN THE
ACTION.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
MR. VAN DYKE:
KYLE VAN
DYKE ON BEHALF OF JEFFERY FRITZ AND FRITZ & BASIE.

MR. WOLFE:
RICHARD WOLFE
FOR DEFENDANTS SIMI AND BATSON.

MR. TAYLOR:
CHARLES
TAYLOR ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.

MR. AGLE:
DANIEL AGLE ON
BEHALF MARILYN BIERER AND BIERER & ASSOCIATES.

MR. GREBING:
CHARLES
14
GREBING ON BEHALF OF MS. BLANCHET, MS. VIVIANO, AND THE
15
NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCE.
16
17
18
THE CLERK:
MR. SCHAFBUCH, WOULD YOU MIND, PLEASE,
STATING YOUR APPEARANCE.

MR. SCHAFBUCH:
YES.
MY
19
NAME IS THOMAS SCHAFBUCH, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE
20
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSICS EXAMINERS AND ROBERT L. O'BLOCK.
21
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
22
MS. MILLS:
RACHAEL MILLS
23
ON BEHALF OF LOVE & ALVAREZ, INC., LORI LOVE, AND LARRY
24
CORRIGAN.
25
MR. PESTOTNIK:
ER 22
TIMOTHY
7 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:7 26
of 24
of 107
(121
PESTOTNIK ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAM HARGRAEVES,
HARGRAEVES & TAYLOR, MERIDITH LEVIN, LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN
SLATTERY, DEFENDANT STOCKS, STOCKS & COLBURN, CAROL BALDWIN,
LAURY BALDWIN, AND BALDWIN & BALDWIN.
THE COURT:
IS THAT EVERYBODY?
THE CLERK:
MR. SANCHEZ:
9
10
THANK YOU.
I BELIEVE THAT IS, YOUR HONOR.

RICKY SANCHEZ FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNTY
COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE.
THE COURT:
11
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
12
THIS WAS SCHEDULED TODAY AS ESSENTIALLY A CASE MANAGEMENT
13
CONFERENCE.
14
AND THE HISTORY OF THAT WAS -- WELL, THAT WAS HEARD ON DECEMBER
15
19TH.
16
A NUMBER OF REASONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS AT THE TIME, ONE OF THE
17
PLAINTIFFS, CALIFORNIA COALITION, WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY
18
COUNSEL AS A CORPORATION AND NEEDED TO BE REPRESENTED BY
19
COUNSEL.
20
PREVIOUSLY THE PLAINTIFFS HAD FILED A COMPLAINT,
THE COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
I ASKED MR. WEBB SPECIFICALLY TO BE IN ATTENDANCE
21
TODAY AS HE HAD REPRESENTED THAT HE IS COUNSEL FOR THE
22
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, AND I WANTED TO
23
MAKE SURE THAT, IN FACT, HE WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE COMPLAINT,
24
WAS ON IT, AND IS PREPARED TO GO FORWARD AS COUNSEL FOR THAT
25
PLAINTIFF; IS THAT CORRECT, MR. WEBB?
ER 23
8 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:8 27
of 24
of 107
(122
MR. WEBB:
THE COURT:
YES, YOUR HONOR.

AND YOU HAVE READ THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT, AND THAT IS YOUR SIGNATURE AND YOU ARE ATTESTING TO
IT?
5
6
MR. WEBB:
YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE FIRST
AMENDED.
THE COURT:
MR. WEBB:
THE COURT:
I'M SORRY, THE FIRST AMENDED.

YES, I HAVE.
OKAY.
AND SO THE PLAINTIFF IS NOW
10
PROPERLY REPRESENTED.
11
HIMSELF STILL AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND I ASKED HIM -- NOW WHEN I
12
ORIGINALLY ASKED HIM TO REDO THE COMPLAINT, IT WAS WHEN HE WAS
13
ONLY GOING TO BE REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THE MATTER, AND I TOLD
14
HIM AND DIRECTED HIM TO RESTRICT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
15
COMPLAINT TO THOSE THINGS FOR WHICH HE COULD REPRESENT HIMSELF,
16
ONLY HIS PERSONAL ALLEGATIONS.
17
MR. COLBERN STUART IS REPRESENTING
THE COMPLAINT AGAIN COVERS THE ALLEGATIONS OF BOTH THE
18
CALIFORNIA COALITION AND MR. STUART INDIVIDUALLY, BUT NOW THAT
19
THERE'S COUNSEL, THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS APPROPRIATE.
20
COURT IS STILL A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE BLENDING OF THE
21
CLAIMS OF THE TWO PARTIES WHERE IT ISN'T TERRIBLY CLEAR WHO IS
22
MAKING THE CLAIM.
23
MR. STUART'S CLAIM AND, YET, THE CLAIM WAS COMPLETE WITH "AND,
24
THEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFFS" PLURAL "ARE DAMAGED," AND SO THERE
25
IS SOME LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHO IS MAKING WHICH CLAIMS,
ER 24
THE
THERE ARE PLACES WHERE IT IS ALLEGED TO BE
9 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 DktEntry:
Filed 03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:9 28
of 24
of 107
(123
AND THERE IS STILL SOME LEVEL OF BLENDING OF CAUSES OF ACTION
WITHIN CLAIMS, WHICH IS TROUBLING TO THE COURT.
BUT THAT SAID, MY INTENT TODAY IS TO GET A SCHEDULE
AND A PLAN FROM DEFENDANTS AS TO HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED.
I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE WANTS TO TAKE THE LEAD HERE IN TERMS OF
LETTING ME KNOW, BUT TO THE EXTENT ANYONE DOES NOT INTEND TO
PROCEED WITH SIMPLY AN ANSWER AND INTENDS TO FILE A MOTION TO
DISMISS, I DON'T WANT TO GET 15 OR 16 OR 20 SEPARATE MOTIONS TO
DISMISS FROM COUNSEL REPRESENTING VARIOUS SUBGROUPS OF
AND
10
DEFENDANTS.
11
DISMISS THAT MAY COVER ISSUES THAT YOU JOINTLY HAVE THAT ARE
12
THE SAME AS TO ALL OF YOU AND THEN ALLOW FOR SUPPLEMENTAL.
13
PEOPLE CAN EITHER JOIN THAT MOTION, YOU CAN ALL FILE IT
14
TOGETHER, OR YOU CAN FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS THAT ADDRESS
15
YOUR CLIENTS INDIVIDUALLY.
MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO GET ONE JOINT MOTION TO
16
SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO, ON BEHALF
17
OF THE DEFENDANTS, LET ME KNOW HOW YOU PLAN TO PROCEED WITH A
18
RESPONSIVE PLEADING?
19
SURE.
20
MR. LUCAS:
I'LL VOLUNTEER, YOUR HONOR, SINCE I'M THE
21
FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT.
22
COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION.
STEVE LUCAS ON BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO
23
THE COURT:
GOOD, YES.
24
MR. LUCAS:
IF I COULD BORROW A PHRASE FROM THE COURT
25
AT THE EARLIER HEARING.
ER 25
I SPENT AN IN ORDINANT AMOUNT OF TIME
10 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1029
of of
24107
(124
REVIEWING THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND ALSO SPENT AN IN ORDINANT
AMOUNT OF TIME REVIEWING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHICH HAS
IN IT ABOUT 75 PAGES OF ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS.
SAME PROBLEM WITH THE SECOND COMPLAINT THAT I FOUND WITH THE
FIRST, AND INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO
PREPARE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 8, AND
APPROPRIATELY AND COHERENTLY IDENTIFIES THE CAUSES OF ACTION,
THE SPECIFIC DEFENDANTS IT ALLEGES LIABLE FOR DAMAGES WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY VERBIAGE, ARGUMENT, RHETORIC, WE'RE STILL IN THE
AND I FIND THE
10
SAME PLACE WE WERE WITH THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.
11
FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO START.
12
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
I DO INTEND TO
WELL, THE ISSUES THAT THE
13
COURT RAISED LAST TIME WERE SPECIFIC TO THE COMPLAINT NOT BEING
14
IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 8, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE
15
MISPLACED TO REASSERT THAT GROUNDS TO DISMISS.
16
PLAINTIFF TO SIMPLIFY, TO CONCISELY STATE IN A STRAIGHTFORWARD
17
FASHION, HIS CLAIMS, AND AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, THE COMPLAINT
18
HAS BALLOONED TO NOW 1200 PARAGRAPHS AND 250-PLUS PAGES, AND I
19
DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY MORE CLARITY REALLY.
20
I ASKED THE
I DON'T BELIEVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION ISSUES HAVE
21
BEEN RESOLVED IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S READING.
22
NOT FOR ME TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK, UNFORTUNATELY, IN THAT REGARD.
23
I DID A CURSORY READING -- WELL, THAT'S NOT REALLY FAIR.
24
SPENT A DAY AND A HALF TRYING TO READ THIS COMPLAINT, AND I AM
25
NOT SATISFIED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO
ER 26
HOWEVER, IT'S
11 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1130
of of
24107
(125
WHAT THE COURT DIRECTED THE PLAINTIFF TO DO.
AND TO BE QUITE FRANK, I'VE HAD A MOMENTS WHERE I WAS
THINKING ABOUT JUST SUA SPONTE DISMISSING IT.
REVIEW OF NINTH CIRCUIT CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT SUGGESTS THAT I
MUST AT LEAST FIND OUT FROM THE DEFENDANTS IF THEY CAN
UNDERSTAND THE COMPLAINT AND ANSWER IT, AND RESPOND TO YOUR
MOTION, NOT MY OWN MOTION.
THINK THIS DID NOT COMPLY WITH MY ORDER, I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY
MORE CLEAR, THERE'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SURPLUSAGE IN HERE
HOWEVER, MY
SO I'M NOT GOING TO HIDE THE FACT I
10
THAT JUST MAKES IT CONFUSING.
ALL OF THE ACRONYMS ARE
11
FRUSTRATING AND -- WELL, I MEAN, I'M JUST GOING TO GET SUCKED
12
INTO THE VORTEX OF THIS THING AGAIN.
13
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE MOTION THAT ADDRESSES THE
14
ISSUES THE COURT PREVIOUSLY RAISED REGARDING RULE 8, REGARDING
15
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND REGARDING THE IMMUNITY ISSUES
16
ON THE BROAD PERSPECTIVE THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL, MOST OF THE
17
DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE IMMUNITY, AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY 1983
18
CLAIMS AGAINST ENTITIES THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A 1983 CLAIM
19
AGAINST.
20
SO IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THAT AND THEN ALLOW
21
OTHERS TO JOIN THAT MOTION, RATHER THAN ME GETTING THAT MOTION
22
INDIVIDUALLY FROM EACH OF YOU, WHICH IS JUST WAY MORE WORK FOR
23
ALL OF YOU AND ME THAN I WANT TO DEAL WITH.
24
25
MR. LUCAS:
I AM WILLING TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR.
ONE
CONCERN THAT I DO HAVE IS ALL THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, THE
ER 27
12 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1231
of of
24107
(126
JUDGES HAVE CERTAIN IMMUNITIES THAT APPLY THAT DON'T APPLY TO
MY CLIENT.
THE COURT:
MR. SCHAFBUCH:
THAT'S FINE.
SAME WITH MY CLIENT.
WE DON'T HAVE
THOSE IMMUNITIES.
THE COURT:
MY THOUGHT HERE WAS TO HAVE AN OMNIBUS
MOTION FILED BY MARCH 18TH AND THEN ALLOW FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
MOTIONS AS TO ANY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY
A MORE OMNIBUS MOTION ON BROADER GROUNDS THAT WOULD BE LIMITED
10
TO, SAY, 10 PAGES OF A MOTION DISMISS IF YOUR CLIENTS HAVE
11
IMMUNITY ISSUES OR OTHER ISSUES THAT AREN'T COVERED IN THE
12
BROADER MOTION.
13
FILE AN OPPOSITION, AND THEN REPLIES WOULD BE DUE BY APRIL
14
25TH.
15
REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT.
16
17
THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE UNTIL APRIL 18TH TO
THE COURT WILL TAKE THIS MOTION ON THE PAPERS UNLESS I
SO DOES ANYONE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT OR WANT TO

ADDRESS PROCEEDING IN THAT WAY?
YES.
MR. NARDI:
I MAY BE AT SOMEWHAT UNIQUE POSITION, YOUR
20
THE COURT:
YOU REPRESENT CHUBB.
21
MR. NARDI:
THE NAME OF THE PARTY IS CHUBB GROUP OF
18
19
HONOR.
22
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
23
A LEGAL ENTITY OF ANY SORT.
24
A GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPARENTLY ONE OF WHICH INSURES
25
THE BAR ASSOCIATION.
ER 28
CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES IS NOT

IT'S A TRADE NAME THAT IS USED BY
SO I'M NOT, BY ATTENDING HERE TODAY,
13 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1332
of of
24107
(127
INTENDING TO MAKE ANY KIND OF A GENERAL APPEARANCE OR WAIVE ANY
RIGHTS OR WAIVE THE RIGHT TO QUASH SERVICE.
THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OR ATTEMPTED SERVICE TO
CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.
ANYWAY.
HAVE A VIABLE ENTITY THAT HAS BEEN NAMED IN THE PLEADING OR
ATTEMPTED TO BE SERVED WITH PROCESS.
SO WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE POINT YET WHERE WE
SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE PREMATURE FOR US TO START
8
9
IT WOULDN'T BE EFFECTIVE
JOINING THE OTHER MOTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY INTENT
10
TO TRY TO SERVE THE CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES OR THE
11
ARROYO RIO (PHONETIC) INSURANCE COMPANY, BUT I JUST WANT TO
12
MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE GOT NOTICE OF THE
13
HEARING.
AND, FRANKLY, I TOO HAVE MADE AN EFFORT TO INTERPRET
14
15
THE COMPLAINT, AND IT'S DIFFICULT.
16
CAUSE OF ACTION.
17
ANY STANDING TO SUE THE BAR ASSOCIATION'S INSURER AT THIS
18
POINT.
19
EVER GET TO THE SUBSTANTIVE POINT, WE MAY BE MAKING A MOTION OF
20
OUR OWN.
21
OUR OWN.
22
I DON'T THINK IT STATES A
IN ANY EVENT, I DON'T THINK THE PLAINTIFF HAS
SO CLEARLY APART FROM THE PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS, IF WE
WE MAY JOIN SOME OF THE OTHERS, BUT MAY MAKE SOME OF
THE COURT:
THAT'S FINE.
AND IF ANYONE ELSE WHO IS
23
HERE WHOSE PARTIES HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY SERVED YET, BUT CAME
24
BECAUSE YOU WERE AWARE OF THE HEARING, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE UNDER
25
NO OBLIGATION TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL YOU'RE SERVED.
ER 29
IF YOU'RE
14 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1433
of of
24107
(128
SERVED IN THE INTERIM AND THEN WANT TO JOIN THE MOTION THAT'S
FILED ON THE 18TH, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT.
MR. NARDI:
MR. STUART:
THE COURT:
MR. STUART:
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD?
YES.
WE HAVE SENT WAIVERS OF SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT EARLIER TO ALL THESE
ENTITIES, INCLUDING CHUBB.
RECEIVED THAT.
I'M NOT AWARE THAT CHUBB HAS NOT
WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY WAIVERS BACK.
UNDER RULE
10
4, I BELIEVE, ACTUALLY THAT DEFENDANTS UPON BECOMING AWARE OF
11
THE EXISTENCE OF A LAWSUIT, THEY HAVE AN INTEREST TO DO THAT
12
OBLIGATION, AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION TO ASSIST IN EFFECTING
13
SERVICE.
AND I WOULD SIMPLY REQUEST THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
14
15
CHUBB IDENTIFY WHO THE APPROPRIATE DEFENDANT IS HERE.
16
OBVIOUSLY IS THE ENTITY WHO INSURED THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
17
ASSOCIATION.
18
TODAY.
19
CHUBB.
20
THEY KNOW WHO THAT IS.
THAT
THEY CAN ACCEPT SERVICE
I WOULD REQUEST THAT COURT OFFER THAT OPPORTUNITY TO
TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHER ENTITIES WHO HAVE BEEN
21
OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO WAIVE SERVICE BY E-MAIL DATED, I
22
THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY 9, THEY'RE PRESENT IN COURT TODAY.
23
CAN APPEAR.
24
CASE STARTED RATHER THAN DEALING WITH THESE PRELIMINARY GOOSE
25
CHASES HAVING TO DO WITH SERVICE.
ER 30
THEY
THEY CAN MAKE A GENERAL APPEARANCE AND GET THIS
15 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1534
of of
24107
(129
THE COURT:
WELL, I ASKED YOU TO FILE PROOFS OF
SERVICES TO EVERYONE YOU SERVED, AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE
GOTTEN PROOFS FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF THE DEFENDANTS.
PROPERLY SERVED THEM UNDER THE RULES AND THEY HAVEN'T ANSWERED,
THEN YOU NEED TO SHOW US YOUR PROOFS OF SERVICE.
HERE WANTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PLAINTIFFS BY ACCEPTING SERVICE
TODAY BECAUSE YOU'RE HERE AND YOU HAVE AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT
SERVICE ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENT, WE CAN FACILITATE MOVING THIS
FORWARD.
10
SO IF YOU
BUT IF ANYONE
BUT THE COURT IS NOT CHANGING THE SCHEDULE IN TERMS OF
11
THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS.
12
SCHEDULE WE HAVE, AND ANYONE WHO IS SERVED IN THE INTERIM OR
13
ACCEPTS SERVICE IN THE INTERIM CAN JUST JOIN INTO THIS.
14
OTHERWISE, THIS GETS STRETCHED OUT INDEFINITELY.
15
16
17
MR. STUART:
HERE.
I WOULD STILL LIKE TO PROCEED ON THE
I AGREE, YOUR HONOR, AND THE PARTIES ARE
THIS COULD BE RESOLVED TODAY.

THE COURT:
WELL, IT ISN'T CONVENIENT FOR YOU, BUT
18
IT'S YOUR LAWSUIT AND YOU NEED TO SERVE THEM, AND IF THEY DON'T
19
WANT TO ACCEPT SERVICE, A WAIVER, THEN YOU HAVE YOUR REMEDIES,
20
AND YOU CAN PROCEED.
21
MR. STUART:
22
23
WE'LL TAKE NOTICE THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE
ACTUAL NOTICE, AND THEY HAVE REFUSED.

THE COURT:
I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT WOULD APPLY TO
24
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO HERE HASN'T BEEN SERVED, OTHER THAN
25
THE INSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE WHO SAID YOU NAMED THE WRONG
ER 31
16 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1635
of of
24107
(130
COMPANY.
OKAY.
MR. PESTOTNIK:
MR. PESTOTNIK.
JUST TO CLARIFY, DOES THE COURT WANT
ALL MOTIONS OR JUST THE OMNIBUS MOTION ON THE 18TH, OR DO YOU
WANT THE JOINDER MOTIONS ALSO FILED SEPARATELY FOR THAT ISSUE
ON THE SAME DAY?
THE COURT:
THE OMNIBUS MOTION BY THE 18TH, AND THEN
IF YOU WANT TO JOIN THAT, YOU NEED TO FILE YOUR NOTICE OF
JOINDER BY APRIL 1ST, AND IF YOU WANT TO SUPPLEMENT IT, THEN
10
YOUR NOTICE OF JOINDER CAN ALSO INCLUDE ANY ISSUES THAT YOU
11
WANT TO SUPPLEMENT WITH REGARD TO YOUR INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS,
12
AND THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR APRIL 1ST MOTION AS WELL.
13
MR. PESTOTNIK:
14
MR. LUCAS:
PERFECT.
STEVE LUCAS ON BEHALF OF THE BAR
15
ASSOCIATION.
16
ONE.
17
I DO DETECT THERE ARE GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COOKS
18
IN THE KITCHEN, SO TO SPEAK, AND I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A
19
LOT OF COORDINATION REQUIRED.
20
18TH IS A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE.
21
MAYBE COUPLE WEEKS BEYOND THE 18TH, I WOULD VERY MUCH
22
APPRECIATE THAT.
23
I THINK THE COURT'S APPROACH TO THIS IS A GOOD
I'M WILLING TO TAKE THE LABORING OAR, AS I INDICATED, BUT
THE COURT:
THAT BEING THE CASE, I THINK THE

IF WE COULD HAVE AN EXTRA
I DON'T WANT TO PUSH THIS OUT TOO FAR, BUT
24
TO THE EXTENT IT FACILITATES BY HAVING YOU JOINTLY WORK
25
TOGETHER, MEET AND AGREE ON AS MUCH AS CAN BE CONTAINED IN THE
ER 32
17 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1736
of of
24107
(131
ONE OMNIBUS MOTION SO THAT THE SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS ARE VERY
NARROWLY FOCUSED TO ASSIST THE PLAINTIFFS IN HAVING TO OPPOSE
SO THAT THEY'RE NOT REPEATEDLY HAVING TO ADDRESS THE SAME
ISSUES, A LITTLE EXTRA TIME MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.
ADJUST THE SCHEDULE.
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS BY APRIL 11TH, AND THEN OPPOSITIONS WOULD
MOVE OUT.
OPPOSITIONS, AND THEN REPLIES WOULD BE DUE BY MAY 9TH.
WE'LL DO A WRITTEN ORDER WITH THOSE DATES, SO EVERYONE HAS
10
SO LET ME
OMNIBUS MOTION BY MARCH 28TH,
I'LL GIVE YOU TO APRIL 30TH, COUNSEL, FOR THE

AND
THEM.
11
MR. STUART:
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. STUART:
YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD?

YES.
WE'D REQUEST SIMPLY A BIT MORE LEAD TIME.
14
THAT'S GOING TO BE LESS THAN 30 DAYS ON OPPOSING WHAT LOOKS TO
15
BE A SUBSTANTIAL MOTION, AND THE DEFENDANTS AT THIS POINT HAVE
16
HAD SINCE JANUARY 9 TO LOOK AT THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.
17
THAT GIVES THEM 90 DAYS TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE
18
OPPOSING.
19
TO OPPOSE.
20
WE WOULD REQUEST THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME, 90 DAYS,
THE COURT:
I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU 90 DAYS TO
21
OPPOSE A MOTION TO DISMISS, COUNSEL.
22
THAN THE TIME THE COURT IS ALLOTTING, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN
23
THE NORMAL TWO WEEKS YOU WOULD GET, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
24
YOU HAVE SERVED, I'LL GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL TIME.
25
YOU 30 DAYS.
ER 33
IF YOU WANT MORE TIME
I'LL GIVE
18 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1837
of of
24107
(132
SO ONE MORE TIME.
MARCH 28TH FOR THE OMNIBUS MOTION,
APRIL 11TH FOR ANY SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS OR JOINDERS, AND THE
COURT WILL GIVE THE PLAINTIFFS UNTIL MAY 16TH TO FILE AN
OPPOSITION, AND MAY 30TH FOR REPLIES.
ON THE PAPERS UNLESS I ASK FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.
MR. STUART:
MR. SANCHEZ:

YOUR HONOR RICKY SANCHEZ, COUNTY
COUNSEL.
ARE LIMITED TO 10 PAGES?
ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS
10
THE COURT:
11
MR. AGLE:
12
ARE GOING TO BE ADDED TO IT.
13
LIMIT?
YES, PLEASE.
ON THE OMNIBUS BRIEF, A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS
THE COURT:
14
AND, AGAIN, IT WILL BE
CAN WE GET AN EXTENDED PAGE
YES, THE OMNIBUS BRIEF, PLEASE, NOT MORE
15
THAN 30 PAGES.
16
KNOWS VOLUME HAS BEEN THE TOUCHSTONE OF THIS CASE SO FAR.
17
DON'T NEED TO HEAR IT.
18
BE 30 PAGES OR LESS.
19
DON'T NEED TO GIVE ME ANY MORE HISTORY.
20
PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF FROM THE FIRST ROUND OF MOTIONS TO
21
DISMISS.
22
I THINK THE POINTS ARE VERY DIRECTED HERE.
GOD
I
BUT I WOULD LIKE THE OMNIBUS BRIEF TO
YOU DO NOT NEED TO REPEAT THE FACTS.
YOU
I THINK WE NEED TO
SIMILARLY WITH ANY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL, MINIMIZE THE
23
AMOUNT OF FACTUAL RECITATION AND JUST GIVE ME WHATEVER IS VERY
24
SPECIFIC THAT REQUIRES THE COURT TO KNOW ABOUT WHATEVER THE
25
LEGAL ISSUE IS THAT YOU'RE ARGUING FOR GROUNDS FOR GROUNDS FOR
ER 34
19 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1938
of of
24107
(133
MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 12(B)(6).
WE HAVE DATES EVERYONE CAN WORK WITH?
SO IS THAT WORKING NOW?
MR. WEBB, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?
MR. WEBB:
YES, IF I MAY.
DO
IF IT PLEASE THE COURT,
WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED COMBINED RESPONSE BRIEF
WOULD THE SAME NUMBER MUCH PAGES, PAGE LIMITATION APPLY?
7
8
THE COURT:
OH, DEAR GOD.
YES, BUT YOUR RESPONSE TO
THE OMNIBUS BRIEF CAN'T EXCEED 30 PAGES.
MR. WEBB:
10
THE COURT:
11
SAY, GO SEE SOMETHING ELSE.
12
MR. WEBB:
13
THE COURT:

I DON'T WANT A BUNCH OF ATTACHMENTS THAT
I WANT A RESPONSE THAT'S 30 PAGES.
YES, YOUR HONOR.

OR LESS.
WITH REGARD TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL
14
BRIEFS, YOU'RE ALSO LIMITED TO 10 PAGES IN RESPONSE TO EACH
15
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF THAT MIGHT BE FILED BY ANY OF THE
16
DEFENDANTS.
17
THIS IS STILL GOING BE A LOT OF PAPER.
MR. GREBING:
CHARLES GREBING.
SORRY TO BE PICKY.
18
REPRESENT SHARON BLANCHET.
19
ACTION BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST HER WHICH WAS DISMISSED IN
20
THE SUPERIOR COURT AFTER A HEARING.
21
ORIGINAL MOTION TO THE COURT ON HER BEHALF THE DOCUMENTS FOR
22
THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF TO DEMONSTRATE THAT FACT.
23
IF I CAN'T GO BEYOND THE 10, I NEED SOME PAGES TO BE ABLE TO
24
GIVE YOU THOSE DOCUMENTS.
25
THE COURT:
ER 35
SHE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR
THAT'S FINE.
I HAVE PRESENTED IN MY
EXHIBITS THAT THE COURT IS
20 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
2039
of of
24107
(134
BEING ASKED TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ARE NOT PART OF YOUR
10-PAGE LIMIT.
MR. GREBING:
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
THE 10 PAGES IS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.
BUT
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS IF YOU GET TO YOUR 10 PAGES AND
THEN YOU START DOING DECLARATIONS TO GET STUFF IN, IT'S LIKE,
LET'S MAKE EXHIBITS --
MR. GREBING:
THE COURT:
-- THAT ARE REAL EXHIBITS.
10
ALL RIGHT.
ANYBODY ELSE GOT ANYTHING?
11
ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL ISSUE THE SCHEDULE AGAIN.
12
UNDERSTOOD.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
QUICKLY, ONE MORE TIME JUST TO RUN THROUGH IT:

OMNIBUS MOTION, MARCH 28TH; SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS,
13
14
APRIL 11TH; PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITIONS, MAY 16TH; REPLY BRIEFS MAY
15
30TH ON THE PAPERS.
16
FOR THE OPPOSITION AND THE OMNIBUS MOTION, 10 PAGES FOR THE
17
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS AND THE OPPOSITIONS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL
18
MOTIONS.
19
10 PAGES FOR THE OMNIBUS MOTION AND 5 PAGES FOR REPLY TO THE
20
SUPPLEMENTALS.
21
THAT'S ALL.
22
23
30 PAGES FOR THE OMNIBUS MOTION, 30 PAGES
AND I'M GOING TO LIMIT REPLIES TO 5 PAGES.
YOU GET
YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EXCEED THAT.
MR. STUART:
YOUR HONOR, I HAVE ONE OTHER MATTER, JUST
HOUSEKEEPING CLEAN UP FROM THE DECEMBER 19TH HEARING, IF I MAY.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. STUART:
ER 36
YES.
AT THE DECEMBER 19TH HEARING, THE
21 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
2140
of of
24107
(135
PLAINTIFF HAD SCHEDULED A RULE 11 MOTION.
ADDRESS THAT MOTION.
RULES OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS.
RULE 11 SANCTIONS THAT WAS BROUGHT BY THE DEFENDANTS, THE
JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS, THAT THE COURT DID DENY.
COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RULE 11
SANCTIONS.
JANUARY.
CRACKS WITH THE GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE COURT'S TAKING OFF
10
HOWEVER, THE
THE OTHER --
12
MR. STUART:
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. STUART:
WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE MOTION?

RULE 11?
YES.
THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE
FRIVOLOUS.
16
THE COURT:
WELL, SINCE THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS
GRANTED, THEY WEREN'T FRIVOLOUS, SO THE MOTION IS DENIED.

MR. STUART:
18
19
THERE WAS A COUNTERMOTION FOR
IT SORT OF -- I THINK IT MAY HAVE SLID BETWEEN THE
THE COURT:
17
IT INSTEAD ADDRESSED THE INITIAL BODY OF
I BELIEVE THAT WAS ACTUALLY SCHEDULED SOME TIME IN
11
15
THE COURT DID NOT
RULING.
HOWEVER JUST AS A MATTER FOR THE RECORD -THE COURT:
20
I WOULD GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE COURT'S
21
IT'S DENIED.
22
GRANTED.
THE MOTIONS WERE NOT FRIVOLOUS IN THAT THEY WERE
23
MR. STUART:
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. STUART:
ER 37
WELL, IT'S NOW RULED ON, ON THE RECORD.
MAY WE HAVE AN ORDER ON THAT, PLEASE?

I'M SORRY?
MAY WE HAVE A WRITTEN ORDER ON THAT?
22 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
2241
of of
24107
(136
THE COURT:
IT WILL BE IN A MINUTE ORDER OF THIS
HEARING.
THAT MOTION WAS THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE FRIVOLOUS.
THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
WEREN'T SANCTIONED FOR FILING A COMPLAINT REPRESENTING A
CORPORATION WHEN YOU KNEW, AS A DISBARRED LAWYER, YOU HAD NO
RIGHT TO DO THAT.
MR. STUART.
THE MINUTE ORDER FOR TODAY IF IT'S STILL OUTSTANDING.
YOUR MOTION IS DENIED FOR SANCTIONS IF THE BASIS OF
YOU WERE LUCKY YOU
AND SO YOU'RE REALLY PUSHING YOUR LUCK,
THAT MOTION IS DENIED.
10
MR. STUART:
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. GRAHAM:
IT WILL BE REFLECTED IN

YES.
YOUR HONOR, MY NAME IS ADAM GRAHAM.
13
HAVE AN APPLICATION PENDING TO -- FOR CO-COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF,
14
AND AS TO THE RECORD, THERE'S NOTHING BEEN DONE WITH IT.
15
JUST WONDERING...
16
17
18
THE COURT:
I WAS
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION PENDING FOR WHAT?

MR. GRAHAM:
I'M AN ATTORNEY IN LOS ANGELES.
I AM A
19
MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA BAR, AND I FILED TO BE ABLE TO APPEAR
20
IN THIS CASE.
21
22
THE COURT:
OKAY.
IT HASN'T GOTTEN TO ME YET.
HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
23
MR. GRAHAM:
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. GRAHAM:
ER 38
OKAY.
ARE YOU APPLYING TO BE LOCAL COUNSEL?
I AM GOING TO BE CO-COUNSEL.
23 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
2342
of of
24107
(137
THE COURT:
MR. GRAHAM:
THE COURT:
MR. GRAHAM:
THE COURT:
6
7
JUST COUNSEL OF RECORD?

CO-COUNSEL.
YOU REALLY TO WANT DO THAT?
YES, YOUR HONOR.
OKAY.
FINE.
WELL, WHEN IT GETS TO ME,
I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT IN DUE COURSE.

MR. SCHAFBUCH:
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD,
BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR EVERYTHING CLEARLY HERE.
SAN DIEGO BAR IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE KEY CONTACT PEOPLE FOR
10
11
WAS IT THE
HELPING FACILITATE THIS OMNIBUS?

THE COURT:
YES.
MR. LUCAS, WHO IS REPRESENTING THE
12
CALIFORNIA BAR ASSOCIATION, HAS TAKEN ON THE LABORING OAR TO
13
ORGANIZE THE OMNIBUS MOTION.
14
WORK WITH HIM TO HAVE THEIR ISSUES, TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE
15
GENERIC TO THE GROUP, BE INCLUDED IN THAT MOTION; SO YOU SHOULD
16
CONTACT MR. LUCAS.
17
THE CLERK:
EVERYONE, HOWEVER, IS INVITED TO
YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, THE MINUTE
18
ORDER OF THE DECEMBER 19TH DATE DOES REFLECT THAT THE MOTION
19
FOR SANCTIONS WAS DENIED.
20
THAT WAS ISSUED, DOCKET NO. 88, DATED DECEMBER 23RD, ALSO
21
ADDRESSES THAT MOTION.
22
THE COURT:
23
MOTION TO STRIKE.
24
SANCTIONS.
25
IT'S DONE WITH.
ER 39
IT ALSO CONSISTENTLY WITH THE ORDER
YES, IT DOES.
COURT DENIES PLAINTIFFS'
NO, THIS IS THE SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION FOR
HE SAID HE HAD A MOTION.
HIS MOTION IS DENIED.
24 of 514)
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
125 Filed
DktEntry:
03/25/14
11-3 Page
Page:
2443
of of
24107
(138
1
2
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE?
ANYBODY?
GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
MR. LUCAS:
MR. STUART:
MR. SCHAFBUCH:
THE COURT:

THANK YOU.
(COURT IN RECESS AT 2:29 P.M.)
*** END OF REQUESTED TRANSCRIPT ***
9
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
10
11
12
I, MAURALEE RAMIREZ, FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER,
13
IN AND FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
14
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT PURSUANT TO
15
SECTION 753, TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE THAT THE FOREGOING IS
16
A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED
17
PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER AND THAT THE
18
TRANSCRIPT PAGE FORMAT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS
19
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES.
20
DATED THIS 24THDAY OF MARCH 2014.
21
22
23
24
/S/ MAURALEE RAMIREZ________________

MAURALEE RAMIREZ, CSR NO. 11674, RPR
FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25
ER 40
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:144
of of
9 107
(139 of 514)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14

FAMILIES AND CHILDREN,
LEXEVIA, PC, COLBERN C.
STUART,

ORDER
Plaintiffs,
vs.
15
Defendants.
16
17
This matter came before the court on December 19, 2013 for a hearing on the
18 Superior Court defendants motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 16] and motion for sanctions
19 [Doc. No. 23]1; the motion to dismiss of defendants Commission on Judicial
20 Performance, Brad Battson, and Lawrence J. Simi [Doc. No. 22]; and on plaintiffs
21 motion to strike [Doc. No. 19.] This order memorializes matters discussed at the
22 hearing. To the extent this written order conflicts with anything said at the hearing, this
23 written order governs.
24
For the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss are granted in part and
25
26
27
28
The Superior Court defendants are (1) Superior Court of California, County of San Diego;
(2) Honorable Robert J. Trentacosta, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court; (3) Michael M. Roddy,
Executive Officer of the Superior Court; (4) the Honorable Lisa Schall; (5) the Honorable Lorna A.
Alksne; (6) the Honorable Christine K. Goldsmith; (7) the Honorable Jeannie Lowe (ret.); (8) the
Honorable William H. McAdam, Jr.; (9) the Honorable Edlene C. McKenzie; and (10) the Honorable
Joel R. Wohlfeil. [Doc. No. 16-1 at 9.]
ER 41
-1-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:245
of of
9 107
(140 of 514)
1 denied in part. The court denies both the Superior Court defendants motion for
2 sanctions and plaintiffs motion to strike.
3
4
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Colbern C. Stuart, California Coalition for Families and Children
5 (California Coalition), and Lexevia, PC filed their complaint on August 20, 2013.
6 [Doc. No. 1.] Stuart is a co-founder, the president, and the Chief Executive Officer of
7 California Coalition. [Id. 105.] Stuart also founded Lexevia, a professional law
8 corporation, in 2008. [Id. 107.]
9
Plaintiffs assert approximately 36 claims against 49 defendants purportedly
10 involved in San Diegos family-law community, including judges, lawyers, law firms,
11 psychologists, social workers, and various state and municipal entities. On August 26,
12 2013, the court sealed the complaint because plaintiffs had listed the home addresses
13 of several judges.
14
The complaint totals 175 pages, with an additional 1156 pages in exhibits and
15 numerous acronyms of plaintiffs invention.2 Plaintiffs do not begin setting forth

16 specific factual allegations as to defendants challenged conduct until page 57,
17 paragraph 113.
18
Though the complaint lacks focus, plaintiffs claims appear to arise mainly out
19 of two events: an April 2010 San Diego County Bar Association (SDCBA) seminar
20 and plaintiff Colbern Stuarts divorce proceedings. The factual allegations as to these
21 events follow.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The court, for its own reference, created the following non-exhaustive key of plaintiffs
many acronyms: CRCCS: civil rights civil and criminal statutes; DDI: domestic dispute industry;
DDIA: domestic dispute industry advocates; DDICE: domestic dispute industry criminal enterprise;
DDI-FICE: domestic dispute industry forensic investigator criminal enterprise; DDI-IACE: domestic
dispute industry intervention advocate criminal enterprise; DDIJO: domestic dispute industry judicial
officers; DDIL: domestic dispute industry litigants; DDIPS: domestic dispute industry professional
services; DDISO: domestic dispute industry security officers; DDISW: domestic dispute industry
social workers; DVILS: domestic violence intervention legislative scheme; FFR: federal family civil
and other rights; FFRESSA: federal family rights reform, exercise, support, and advocacy; FLC:
family law community; FL-IACE: family law intervention advocate criminal enterprise; SAD:
schemes and artifices to defraud; SD-DDICE: San Diego domestic dispute industry criminal
enterprise; TCE: target community estates.
ER 42
-2-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:346
of of
9 107
(141 of 514)
1.
The SDCBA Seminar
The San Diego County Bar Association hosted a seminar on April 15, 2010, with
3 the theme: Litigants Behaving BadlyDo Professional Services Really Work? [Doc.
4 No. 1 114-16.] Members of plaintiff California Coalition learned of the seminar in
5 advance and decided to organize a demonstration outside the seminar to engage
6 professionals involved with the family law community.
[Id. 117-19, 123.]
7 California Coalition created pamphlets and signs to display at the seminar, adopting the
8 counter-theme: Judges Behaving BadlyIf You Dont Follow The Law, Why Would
9 We? [Id. 118-19.] Defendants learned of California Coalitions intention to
10 demonstrate outside the seminar prior to the event. [Id. 124.]
11
California Coalition members arrived early at the seminar and peacefully
12 distributed pamphlets to attendees. [Id. 124-127.] Plaintiff Stuart did not gather
13 outside with other California Coalition members but instead entered the seminar. [Id.
14 127.] At the time of the seminar, Stuart was a member of the SDCBA, and he had
15 purchased admission through the SDCBAs online store. [Id.] About 100 legal
16 professionals attended the seminar. [Id. 129.] In addition, approximately 15
17 uniformed Sheriffs deputies were present and moved closer to Stuart once he selected
18 a seat. [Id.]
19
The seminar began with introductory remarks by Family Law Division
20 Supervising Judge Lorna Alksne. [Id. 130.] After about two minutes of speaking,
21 however, Judge Alksne announced that she needed to take a break so we can straighten
22 something out. [Id.] Judge Alksne then walked to the back of the conference room
23 and conferred with several defendants. [Id. 131, 132.] Soon two security officers
24 employed by defendant Off Duty Officer, Inc. approached Stuart, confirmed that he was
25 Colbern Stuart, and then asked Stuart to leave the seminar. [Id. 133.] Stuart refused.
26 [Id.] The two security guards then went back to the huddle and soon returned with two
27 Sheriffs deputies. [Id. 135.] When Stuart again refused to leave, the men forced
28 Stuart to stand, grabbed his arms, forced his hands behind his back, and handcuffed
ER 43
-3-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:447
of of
9 107
(142 of 514)
1 him. They searched his person, emptied his pockets, seized his property . . . [and]
2 forcibly led Stuart out of the seminar in front of dozens of [his] professional
3 colleagues. [Id. 135.]
4
The officers released Stuart outside of the SDCBA building and told him he
5 could not return. [Id. 135.] The seminar reconvened, and several SDCBA panel
6 speakers then joked that Stuart got what he asked for . . . lets see if that gets them any
7 publicity. [Id.]
8
2.
Stuarts Divorce
On about September 12, 2008, and based on the recommendations of defendants
10 Sharon Blanchet and Judge Wohlfeil, plaintiff Stuart hired defendant Doyne, Inc. to
11 mediate his divorce. [Doc. No. 1 216, 232, 237, 238.] Judge Wohlfeil oversaw the
12 Stuart dissolution until December 2008, when the matter was transferred to defendant
13 Judge Schall. [Id. 240.]
14
Doyne, Inc. made various representations in its contract with Stuart, for instance
15 that the mediation process would be completed in a month or two and that fees and
16 expenses would not exceed the initial $5,000 retainer. [Id. 217(F), (G).] Stuart
17 asserts that Doyne, Inc. breached the contract in June 2009 by, among other things,
18 extending the mediation for a longer period than was agreed to, filing false reports with
19 San Diego Countys child protective services alleging that Stuart had held his son
20 upside down over a balcony, and causing Stuart to lose custody of his son. [Id. 220.]
21 As a result, on about March 1, 2009, Stuart terminated Doynes services. [Id. 221.]
22 Stuart alleges that, in retaliation, Doyne attempted to extort money from Stuart and
23 made false statements in a hearing relating to Stuarts son. [Id. 224.] In addition, in
24 May 2009, Doyne telephoned Stuart at his home and requested that Stuart pay Doyne
25 for services he falsely claimed to have provided. [Id. 225.]
26
As referenced above, plaintiffs assert approximately 36 causes of action arising
27 variously under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986, the Racketeer Influenced and
28 Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and
ER 44
-4-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:548
of of
9 107
(143 of 514)
1 the common law. The Superior Court defendants filed their motion to dismiss on
2 September 30, 2013. [Doc. No. 16.] The Commission on Judicial Performances moved
3 to dismiss on November 14, 2013. [Doc. No. 22.] Ten more motions to dismiss were
4 subsequently filed and scheduled for hearing on January 24, 2014. [Doc. Nos. 48, 49,
5 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 62, 67, 73. ] As set forth below, however, the court dismisses the
6 entire complaint and therefore deems those latter ten motions withdrawn.
7
DISCUSSION
8 A.
Plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia
Plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia are each identified in the complaint
10 as corporations. [Id. 100, 107.] Corporations must appear in court through an

11 attorney. D-Deam Ltd. PShip v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th
12 Cir. 2004); CivLR 83.3(k). Here, the title page of plaintiffs complaint indicates that
13 Dean Browning Webb is the attorney for plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia,
14 and that Mr. Webbs pro hac vice is pending. [Doc. No. 1 at 1.] In addition, the
15 complaints signature page again lists Mr. Webb as attorney for California Coalition
16 and Lexevia, and above his name contains an /s/ symbol and signature line.
17 Nonetheless, since the complaints filing on August 20, 2013, neither Mr. Webb nor any
18 other attorney has entered an appearance for California Coalition or Lexevia. Further,
19 counsel for the Superior Court defendants informs in a declaration:
20
21
22
23
On August 26, 2013, I received a voice mail message from Mr. Webb. In
his message, Mr. Webb informed me that Mr. Stuart used his name on the
Complaint without his permission. Mr. Webb confirmed this information
to me in subsequent telephone conversations and indicated that he
intended to call the federal Clerk of Courts office to advise that office that
he had not agreed to represent plaintiffs in this case.
24 [Doc. No. 16-3 4.]

25
No counsel appeared for California Coalition or Lexevia at the motions hearing
26 held December 19, 2013. Because plaintiffs California Coalition and Lexevia do not
27 appear through counsel, the court DISMISSES their claims without prejudice.
28
ER 45
-5-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:649
of of
9 107
(144 of 514)
1 B.
Plaintiff Colbern Stuart
The court also DISMISSES plaintiff Stuarts claims without prejudice for failure
3 to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim
4 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Here, plaintiffs
5 violate Rule 8(a)(2) in at least three ways.
6
First, because plaintiffs assert most of their claims on behalf of all three plaintiffs,
7 neither the court nor defendants can distinguish Stuarts asserted harm from the
8 corporations. See, e.g., Doc. No.1 148, 150, 157, 161, 171, 175, 179, 183, 190, 192,
9 204, 206, 208, 215, 347, 349, 352, 354, 356, 358, 360, 366, 368, 370, 372, 374, 385
10 (As an actual and proximate result, PLAINTIFFS have been HARMED.) Because
11 the corporations have been dismissed for failure to obtain counsel, and the complaint
12 does not identify the individual harm Stuart suffered for each claim, Stuart does not set
13 forth plain statements of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief.
14
Second, Stuart fails to clearly identify each separate claim for relief. Count One,
15 for instance, is labeled:

16
17
18
19
20
Illegal Search, Seizure, Assault, Battery, Arrest, and Imprisonment

Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law
42 U.S.C. 1983
U.S. Const. 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 14th Amend.
Supplemental State Claims
Against Defendants
SDCBA, ODO, DDISO, DOES 1-15, GORE, DDIJO DOES1-50, SAC,
SIMI, BATSON
21 [Doc. No. 1 141.] The court cannot discern just how many separate state and federal
22 claims Stuart intends to assert here. Further, Stuart fails to connect his factual
23 allegations to the numerous causes of action identified. If Stuart sincerely means to
24 assert that defendants violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and
25 Fourteenth Amendment rights, he must identify the factual allegations that support each
26 alleged violation.
27
Finally, while dismissal on the basis of length or verbosity alone is inappropriate,
28 Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 530 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth
ER 46
-6-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:750
of of
9 107
(145 of 514)
1 Circuit has affirmed dismissal on Rule 8 grounds where the complaint is

2 argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant; McHenry v.
3 Renne, 74 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996); verbose, confusing and conclusory,
4 Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981); or where it is
5 impossible to designate the cause or causes of action attempted to be alleged in the
6 complaint, Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980).
7
Here, plaintiffs complaint totals 175 pages, with an additional 1156 pages in
8 exhibits, substantially exceeding the length of complaints considered in Ninth Circuit

9 cases that have affirmed dismissal on Rule 8 grounds.3 Further, while length alone is
10 not grounds for dismissal, plaintiffs complaint here is confusing, redundant,
11 conclusory, and buries its factual allegations in pages of generalized grievances about
12 the family courts. The prolixity and inscrutability of plaintiffs complaint is unduly
13 prejudicial to defendants, who face the onerous task of combing through [plaintiffs
14 lengthy complaint] just to prepare an answer that admits or denies such allegations and
15 to determine what claims and allegations must be defended or otherwise litigated.
16 Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir.
17 2011). Further, plaintiffs complaint is unmanageable for the court. As the Ninth
18 Circuit noted in McHenry:
19
20
21
22
23
24
The judge wastes half a day in chambers preparing the short and plain
statement which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit. [The judge] then
must manage the litigation without knowing what claims are made against
whom. This leads to discovery disputes and lengthy trials, prejudicing
litigants in other case[s] who follow the rules, as well as defendants in the
case in which the prolix pleading is filed. [T]he rights of litigants
awaiting their turns to have other matters resolved must be considered....
Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 675; Von Poppenheim, 442 F.2d [1047, 1054 (9th Cir.
1971).]
25 McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1180.

26
The court therefore DISMISSES plaintiff Stuarts claims for failure to comply
27
28
See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1174 (53 pages); Hatch, 758 F.2d at 415 (70 pages); Nevijel, 651
F.2d at 674 (48 pages); and Schmidt, 614 F.2d at 1224 (30 pages).
ER 47
-7-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:851
of of
9 107
(146 of 514)
1 with Rule 8. Dismissal is without prejudice and with leave to amend, with the
2 following exceptions. The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Stuarts claims
3 against the defendant judges for damages arising out of judicial acts within the
4 jurisdiction of their courts. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986).
5 The court also DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Stuarts claims against the
6 Commission on Judicial Performance and against its officials, Simi and Battson, to the
7 extent the latter are sued for damages in their official capacity. U.S. Const. Amend XI;
8 Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 976 (S.D. Cal. 1998); Cal. Const. Art. IV,
9 18(H).
10
In composing his amended complaint, Stuart must heed the statute of limitations
11 for Section 1983 and Section 1985 claims brought in this court, which is generally two
12 years. Action Apartment Assn, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 1020,
13 1026 (9th Cir. 2007); McDougal v. County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir.
14 1991) ( 1985 claims are governed by the same statute of limitations as 1983 claims.)
15 Generally, the statute of limitations begins to run when a potential plaintiff knows or
16 has reason to know of the asserted injury. Action Apartment, 509 F.3d at 1026-27.
17 Here, Stuarts claims appear to arise primarily out of two events: the April 15, 2010
18 San Diego County Bar Association seminar and his dissolution mediation before
19 defendant Doyne, Inc., which concluded in about November 2009. [Doc. No. 1 24,
20 241.] These claims therefore appear barred by the statute of limitations. To the extent
21 Stuart contends that equitable tolling should apply, he must set forth specific allegations
22 in his amended complaint to support such a theory.
23
24
CONCLUSION
The motions to dismiss of the Superior Court and Commission on Judicial
25 Performance defendants [Doc. Nos. 16, 22] are granted in part and denied in part. The
26 complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Stuart has leave to file an amended
27 complaint no later than Thursday, January 9, 2014. Stuart may assert claims only on
28 his behalf and should be wary of the immunity and statute-of-limitation issues
ER 48
-8-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731188 DktEntry:
Filed 12/23/13
11-3 Page
Page:952
of of
9 107
(147 of 514)
1 addressed above. Though Stuart appears pro se, the court notes that he formally was
2 a licensed member of the California bar with a complex litigation practice. [Doc. No.
3 1 102.] It is anticipated that Stuart has the requisite knowledge and training to submit
4 a complaint that complies with Rule 8 and appropriately and coherently identifies his
5 causes of action and the specific defendants he alleges liable for his asserted damages
6 without unnecessary verbiage, argument, and rhetoric.
7
The court denies plaintiffs motion to strike and the Superior Courts motion for
8 sanctions. [Doc. Nos. 19, 23.] Finally, the court deems withdrawn the remaining
9 motions to dismiss. [Doc. Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 62, 67, 73. ]
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12 DATED: December 23, 2013
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ER 49
-9-
13cv1944
1
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:1 53
of 18
of 107
(148 of 514)
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILY

AND CHILDREN,
)
)
)
PLAINTIFFS,
)
)
VS.
)
)
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,)
ET AL.,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
CASE NO. 13CV1944-CAB(BLM)

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 19,
2013
MOTION HEARING
10
11
12
13
14
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
15
BEFORE THE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
OFFICIAL REPORTER:
24
25
ER 50
MAURALEE A. RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR

333 BROADWAY, SUITE 420
ORDERTRANSCRIPT@GMAIL.COM
619-994-2526
2
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:2 54
of 18
of 107
(149 of 514)
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
COLBERN C. STUART, III

IN PRO SE
4891 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SUITE 102
FOR THE DEFENDANT

SUPERIOR COURT
OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, AND NAMED
JUDICIAL OFFICERS:
MATTHEW L. GREEN
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
FOR THE DEFENDANT

COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE,
DEFENDANT SIMI,
DEFENDANT BATSON:
RICHARD F. WOLFE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 WEST "A" STREET, SUITE 1100
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ER 51
3
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:3 55
of 18
of 107
(150 of 514)
1
2
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2013; 2:00 P.M.

THE CLERK:
WE ARE ON RECORD THIS AFTERNOON ON CASE
13CV1944-CAB-BLM, CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN,
ET AL., VERSUS SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, ET AL., ON
CALENDAR FOR MOTION HEARING.
6
7
8
9
IF I COULD PLEASE HAVE COUNSEL STATE THEIR APPEARANCE,

BEGINNING WITH PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL.
MR. STUART:
MY NAME IS
COLE STEWART.
10
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
11
MR. GREEN:
MATTHEW GREEN
12
ON BEHALF OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
13
SAN DIEGO, AND SEVERAL -- WELL, ALL THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS THAT
14
ARE NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT.
15
THE COURT:
THANK YOU.
16
MR. WOLFE:
RICHARD WOLFE
17
I'M APPEARING FOR THE COMMISSION DEFENDANTS, THE COMMISSION ON
18
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE AND DEFENDANTS SIMI AND BATSON.
19
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
20
ALL RIGHT.
BEFORE THE COURT TODAY ARE MOTIONS TO
21
DISMISS BROUGHT BY THE SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS, A MOTION TO
22
DISMISS BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION, A MOTION TO STRIKE FILED BY
23
THE PLAINTIFF, AND A MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BROUGHT BY THE
24
SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANTS.
25
TO PREPARE FOR THIS HEARING, I'LL JUST START BY SAYING
ER 52
4
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:4 56
of 18
of 107
(151 of 514)
THAT MY LAW CLERK AND I SPENT WHAT I CONSIDER AN UNACCEPTABLE
AND INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS
COMPLAINT AND WHAT IT STATES AND WHAT THE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE
AND AGAINST WHO.
COMPLAINT THAT IS IN THE NATURE OF THE SORT OF THING I MIGHT
EXPECT TO SEE FROM AN UNEDUCATED PERSON WHO IS IN CUSTODY WHO
KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE LAW AND HAS SIMPLY PULLED OUT BOOKS AND
STATUTES AND RECITED THE CAUSES OF ACTION WITHOUT ANY
RECITATION TO FACTS OR RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEFENDANTS IN THE
10
AND IN THE WHOLE FRAMEWORK OF IT, IT IS A
CASE.
11
AND WE STRUGGLE IN THOSE PRO SE CASES TO TRY TO FIND
12
WHAT THE CLAIM IS AND WHAT THE PURPOSE IS SO THAT PEOPLE WHO
13
NEED THE HELP OF A COURT GET IT.
14
COURT UNDERSTANDS IT, A PREVIOUSLY PRACTICING LAWYER WITH A
15
PROMINENT LAW FIRM, AND I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE TO DO THAT FOR
16
SOMEBODY LIKE YOU.
17
DISAPPOINTING AND IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE WASTE OF THIS COURT'S
18
TIME.
19
MR. STUART, YOU ARE, AS THE
AND IT'S FRUSTRATING AND IT'S REALLY
THE PLAINTIFF CORPORATIONS, THE CALIFORNIA COALITION
20
FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN AND LEXEVIA CORPORATION, THEIR
21
COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
22
THERE IS NO INDICATION THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
23
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT SUGGESTS THAT A MR. WEBB WAS GOING TO
24
APPEAR FOR THEM, HE HAS NEVER FILED AN APPEARANCE IN THIS
25
COURT, HE HAS NOT FILED A PRO HAD VICE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE
ER 53
THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
5
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:5 57
of 18
of 107
(152 of 514)
NO CONTACT WITH THE COURT, HE IS NOT HERE TODAY, HE DIDN'T SIGN
ANY OF THE PLEADINGS IN THE CASE.
IT IS AN INAPPROPRIATE PLEADING FOR A PRO SE TO HAVE
FILED EVERYTHING ON BEHALF OF CORPORATE ENTITIES.
ARE DISMISSED, NOT ONLY AS TO THE DEFENDANTS HERE TODAY BUT ALL
THE DEFENDANTS IN THE CASE.
HERE WITHOUT COUNSEL, AND THEIR CAMES ARE DISMISSED.
THEIR CLAIMS
THEY DON'T HAVE STANDING TO BE
NOW THEY'RE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND IF THEY
GET COUNSEL AND THEY CAN PROVIDE A COMPLAINT -- AND BEFORE THEY
10
FILE ANYTHING, THOUGH, I ACTUALLY WANT TO HAVE COUNSEL MAKE AN
11
APPEARANCE TO THIS COURT TO TELL ME THAT HE HAS REVIEWED THEIR
12
CLAIMS AND IS COMPETENT AND CONFIDENT THAT THEY CAN BE BROUGHT
13
AND THAT THEY'RE MEANINGFUL.
14
CLAIMS, ANY CLAIMS THEY HAVE, ARE DISMISSED.
15
BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, THEIR
WITH REGARD TO THE THINGS THAT YOU, MR. STUART, CAN
16
REPRESENT YOURSELF ON AS A PRO SE LITIGANT, THE COURT WOULD
17
ALSO JUST NOTE THIS IS A VERIFIED COMPLAINT, AND IN IT, YOU
18
STATE YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE.
19
QUITE TRUE, IS IT, SIR?
20
MR. STUART:
I BELIEVE IT SAID AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES,
21
I WAS AN ATTORNEY.
22
WAS DISBARRED ON, I THINK, DECEMBER 12TH, 2012.
23
24
25
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY GOING BACK SOME TIME.
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
PRACTICING ATTORNEY NOW, RIGHT?

MR. STUART:
ER 54
THAT'S NOT
RIGHT.
WELL, YOU'RE NOT A LICENSED
6
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:6 58
of 18
of 107
(153 of 514)
THE COURT:
MR. STUART:
THE COURT:
YOU'VE BEEN DISBARRED?

THAT'S CORRECT.
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SUSPENDED
IN ANY OTHER STATES YOU PREVIOUSLY HELD A LICENSE IN?
MR. STUART:
THE COURT:
THAT'S CORRECT.
YOU CAN REPRESENT YOURSELF.
THAT'S NOT A
PROBLEM.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS COMPLAINT IS PREPARED, IT
IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE COURT TO DISENTANGLE YOUR PERSONAL
CLAIMS FROM THOSE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON
10
BEHALF OF THE CORPORATE ENTITIES.
11
TOGETHER.
12
EVERYTHING IS ALL JUMBLED
AND SO AT THE VERY LEAST, THE COURT WOULD HAVE YOU
13
AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO BE SOLELY REPRESENTING YOUR RIGHTS AND
14
INTERESTS AND THE VIOLATIONS YOU BELIEVE ARE SPECIFIC TO YOU,
15
AND DISENTANGLE ALL OF THE CLAIMS THAT ARE MADE ON BEHALF OF
16
THE CORPORATION, THEIR POLITICAL OR FAMILY LAW AGENDA, ANY
17
CLAIMS THAT SMACK OF CLASS REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF
18
INDIVIDUALS WHO YOU FEEL ARE HARMED BY THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM.
19
YOU CAN'T REPRESENT A CLASS AS A PRO SE.
YOU CAN ONLY
20
REPRESENT YOURSELF.
21
WHAT IS JUST SPECIFIC TO YOU AS OPPOSED TO THIS BROADER AGENDA
22
THAT YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT.
23
AND I CAN'T DISCERN FROM THIS COMPLAINT
THE OTHER PROBLEM I HAVE AND, THEREFORE, THINK THE
24
COMPLAINT FAILS UNDER RULE 8 TO BE A PLAIN AND CONCISE
25
STATEMENT OF YOUR CAUSES OF ACTION IS REFLECTED IN THE WAYS THE
ER 55
7
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:7 59
of 18
of 107
(154 of 514)
CAUSES OF ACTION ARE SET FORWARD.
WE'LL START WITH COUNT 1 JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU LIST, AND THIS
IS AT PAGE 69 ON YOUR COMPLAINT, COUNT 1, ILLEGAL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE, ASSAULT, BATTERY, ARREST, IMPRISONMENT, DEPRIVATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 1983, FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH,
SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL
STATE LAW CLAIMS.
WHAT THEY'RE BEING ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE INDIVIDUALLY SO THAT
THEY CAN FILE AN ANSWER?
10
FOR EXAMPLE, EACH COUNT, AND
HOW IS ANYBODY SUPPOSED TO KNOW FROM THAT
AND THE COURT CAN'T RATIONALLY FIGURE OUT HOW YOU
11
COULD POSSIBLY HAVE A SIXTH, SEVENTH OR EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM
12
IN THIS CASE.
13
JURY AND COMPETENT COUNSEL IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL.
14
AMENDMENT IS FOR THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN A CIVIL CASE,
15
NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN THIS
16
CASE.
17
FOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
18
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT HAS TO DO WITH THE RIGHT TO

THE SEVENTH
AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT YOU BE IN CUSTODY
THERE ARE SOME SORT OF FACTS THAT MIGHT RELATE TO THE
19
FOURTH OR THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
20
AMENDMENT CLAIM IS, BUT IT'S ALL SO SMOOSHED TOGETHER, AND THEN
21
IT'S JUST A SERIES OF CONCLUSORY COMMENTS THAT THESE
22
DEFENDANTS, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM, VIOLATED THESE RIGHTS
23
WITH NOTHING ATTRIBUTING IT TO ANY OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY.
24
25
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR FIFTH
I SPENT A BUNCH OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT

CLAIMS WERE SPECIFIC TO YOU THAT THERE IS A FACTUAL BASIS FOR,
ER 56
8
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:8 60
of 18
of 107
(155 of 514)
AND I CAME UP WITH TWO THINGS.
CHARACTERIZED AS THE STUART ASSAULT AND WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE
BEEN YOUR REMOVAL FROM A SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
SEMINAR THAT TOOK PLACE ON APRIL 15TH, 2010, AND THAT THAT
SEEMS TO BE THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF YOUR 1983 AND 1985 CLAIMS.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S MERIT TO THAT, THEY WOULD BE BARRED BY
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
8
9
THERE'S WHAT YOU HAVE
THEY HAPPENED IN APRIL OF 2010.
THIS COMPLAINT WASN'T
FILED UNTIL AUGUST OF 2013, AND, THEREFORE, ANY 1983 OR 1985
10
CLAIMS ARE BARRED.
SO WITHOUT EVEN GETTING INTO THE MERITS OF
11
THEM, THE COURT FINDS THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE BARRED AS TO
12
EVERY DEFENDANT, AND THEY'RE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE
13
THERE'S NO WAY TO FIX THAT.
14
MR. STUART:
15
THE COURT:
16
17
YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD ON THAT?

LET ME FINISH, AND THEN YOU CAN TELL ME
WHAT YOU NEED TO TELL ME.

THE OTHER OPERATIVE FACTUAL BASIS THAT THE COURT CAN
18
TEASE OUT OF THIS THING IS THAT YOU HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST
19
MR. DOYNE FOR HIS FUNCTIONS IN THE MEDIATION OF YOUR
20
DISSOLUTION PROCEEDINGS WHERE YOU FEEL THAT HE SOMEHOW BREACHED
21
A CONTRACT OR VIOLATED HIS DUTIES TO YOU.
22
COMPLAINT, IT APPEARS HE PERFORMED THOSE DUTIES BETWEEN
23
DECEMBER OF 2008 AND NOVEMBER 2009.
24
THOSE ARE THE BASIS OF ANY 1983 OR 1985 CLAIMS, THEY WOULD ALSO
25
BE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
ER 57
BASED ON THE
AND, AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT
9
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 DktEntry:
Filed 09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:9 61
of 18
of 107
(156 of 514)
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR RICO CLAIMS AT ALL.
I DON'T
KNOW WHO YOU'RE CLAIMING DID WHAT OR WHETHER THEY DID IT TO YOU
OR TO THE CORPORATIONS OR IT'S JUST A GENERAL ALLEGATION THAT
YOU'RE DISSATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE FAMILY SAW SYSTEM RUNS IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT CONSTITUTES A CAUSE
OF ACTION, AND SO THEY'RE JUST DISMISSED UNDER RULE 8 FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CONCISE CLAIM, AND IN PART, BECAUSE, AGAIN,
EVERYTHING IS SO WEDDED TOGETHER WITH THE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE
DISMISSED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS SPECIFIC TO YOU.
10
BUNCH OF STUFF IN HERE.
11
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8.
12
IT'S JUST A
THE WHOLE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR
THE CAUSES OF ACTION THAT ARISE OUT OF THE APRIL 15,
13
2010 INCIDENT AT THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR THAT ARE GOVERNED BY
14
THIS TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH APPLY TO YOUR 1983
15
AND YOUR 1985 CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
16
BECAUSE THEY'RE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
17
THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARISE OUT OF YOUR TRANSACTIONS
18
WITH MR. DOYNE BETWEEN DECEMBER 2008 AND DECEMBER 2009 THAT
19
ALSO ARE THE BASIS OF YOUR 1983 AND 1985 ACTIONS ARE ALSO
20
DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY'RE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
21
THE COMMISSION'S MOTION FOR IMMUNITY TO BE DISMISSED,
22
THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION, IS GRANTED.
23
THEY HAVE IMMUNITY IN THIS ACTION.
AS FAR AS I CAN TELL,
24
AND THE ONLY THINGS THAT I SEE LEFT THAT ARE
25
POTENTIALLY OPERATIVE AGAINST THE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS AND THE
ER 58
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 Filed
DktEntry:
09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1062
of of
18107
(157 of10
514)
SUPERIOR COURT ARE ACTIONS THEY HAVE TAKEN IN THEIR JUDICIAL
CAPACITY AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT, RUNNING THE FAMILY COURT
SYSTEM, AND, THEREFORE, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD SOME KERNEL OF AN ARGUMENT
THAT WHEN THEY WERE SPEAKERS AT A SEMINAR IF THEY ORDERED YOU
TO BE REMOVED AND THAT THAT WAS SOMEHOW A VIOLATION OF YOUR
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK, THAT WASN'T JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR
BECAUSE THEY'RE SPEAKING AT A SEMINAR, MAYBE.
NEED TO GO THERE BECAUSE IT'S BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
10
I DON'T EVEN
LIMITATIONS.
11
BUT THE WHOLE REST OF THE COMPLAINT THAT ARGUES THE
12
WAY THE FAMILY COURT OPERATES IS THE OPERATION OF THE COURT,
13
AND THAT IS JUST THEY HAVE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR THAT.
14
THOSE DEFENDANTS ARE ALL DISMISSED AS TO THIS COMPLAINT WITH
15
PREJUDICE.
16
SO
AND IF YOU AMEND AND YOU CAN STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
17
AGAINST ANY OF THEM THAT CLEARLY OUTLINES TO THE COURT THEY
18
ACTED IN A CAPACITY THAT WASN'T THEIR JUDICIAL CAPACITY, THEN
19
YOU CAN GO FORWARD WITH THAT, BUT I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, I'M
20
DENYING YOUR MOTION TO STRIKE.
21
I'M DENYING THEIR MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, BUT IF YOU
22
COME BACK AND GIVE ME THIS LAUNDRY LIST OF DEFENDANTS AGAIN AND
23
DO NOT GIVE ME JUSTIFIABLE REASONS AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD BE
24
DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE AND DON'T TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THEIR
25
RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY AND JUST NAME THEM TO HARASS THEM,
ER 59
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 Filed
DktEntry:
09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1163
of of
18107
(158 of11
514)
I WILL CONSIDER SANCTIONS AGAINST YOU, SIR.
SO WITH THAT, THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS ARE GRANTED, THE
MOTION IS GRANTED WITH LEAVE FOR YOU TO AMEND WITH CAUSES OF
ACTION SPECIFIC TO YOU AGAINST DEFENDANTS WHO YOU CAN
INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFY AND GIVE ME PLAUSIBLE FACTS AS TO WHAT
THEY DID TO VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS.
THAT AMENDED MOTION.
DISMISS IN THIS CASE, THOSE MOTIONS ARE VACATED BECAUSE THEY'RE
ADDRESSING THIS COMPLAINT.
10
AND YOU HAVE 20 DAYS TO FILE
ANYONE ELSE WHO HAD A MOTION PENDING TO
IT IS NO LONGER THE OPERATIVE
COMPLAINT IN THE CASE.
11
A NEW COMPLAINT HAS TO BE FILED IN 20 DAYS.
12
NAMES YOUR PARTIES, ONCE IT'S FILED AND YOU'RE SERVED, I WOULD
13
LIKE TO HAVE A STATUS CONFERENCE ON HAVING SOME SORT OF JOINT
14
DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY FURTHER MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SO I DON'T GET
15
REPETITIVE MOTIONS FROM EVERYBODY.
16
17
18
IF IT
WITH THAT, SIR, YOU CAN PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT ON THE
RECORD.
MR. STUART:
YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.
GIVEN THE BREADTH
19
OF THE COURT'S RULING, WE WOULD REQUEST THE COURT TO ENTER A
20
MOTION UNDER RULE 54 FOR IMMEDIATE CERTIFICATION.
21
THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE COURT OR THE PARTIES TO GO THROUGH A
22
ROUND OF AMENDMENTS GIVEN THE COURT'S EXPRESSED POSITION WITH
23
REGARDS TO THE COMPLAINTS, AND I'M CERTAIN THAT ANYTHING I SAY
24
HERE TODAY WOULD NOT BE OVERWHELMINGLY PERSUASIVE GIVEN WHAT
25
THE COURT HAS ADVISED.
ER 60
I DON'T
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 Filed
DktEntry:
09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1264
of of
18107
(159 of12
514)
THE COURT:
THAT'S DENIED BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT IN THE
STATUS IT'S IN, GIVEN, AGAIN, IF NOTHING ELSE, THE WAY IT IS SO
INTERTWINED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS WHO CANNOT BE PLAINTIFFS IN
THIS CASE AND YOUR OWN INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU
COULD APPEAL A DISMISSAL OF THIS COMPLAINT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
DISCERN OUT OF IT WHO IS SUING WHO FOR WHAT.
MR. STUART:
THE COURT:
WE.
YOU NEED TO AMEND.
YOU NEED TO PUT A
COMPLAINT IN FRONT OF ME THAT IS A SPECIFIC, CONCISE, PLAIN
10
STATEMENT OF THE LAW AS TO WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU THAT ANY OF THE
11
DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
12
COMPLAINT.
AND IT BETTER DAMN WELL NOT BE MORE THAN 30 PAGES
13
LONG, SIR.
I AM NOT LOOKING AT ANOTHER 175-PAGE COMPLAINT OF A
14
BUNCH OF RHETORIC AND IRRELEVANT MATERIAL.
15
WRITE A COMPLAINT THAT MAKES SENSE.
16
MR. STUART:
17
FOR IMMEDIATE CERTIFICATION?
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. STUART:
20
21
THIS IS NOT THAT
YOU'RE A LAWYER,
I TAKE THAT TO BE A DENIAL OF THE MOTION
YES.
AND THE LEAVE TO AMEND IS FOR THE
PERSONAL CLAIMS ONLY WITH REGARDS TO THE NON-1983, 1985 CLAIMS?

THE COURT:
UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN
22
THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
23
CAN'T BE MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF
24
THE COMPLAINT.
25
MR. STUART:
ER 61
IT
WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE DO HAVE THE POSITION
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 Filed
DktEntry:
09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1365
of of
18107
(160 of13
514)
THAT THE LONGER STATUTE SHOULD APPLY, AND WE COULD CERTAINLY --
WE HAVE OFFERED TO AMEND TO PLEAD TOLLING AND ACCRUAL ISSUES
THAT WOULD EXTEND THAT STATUTE FOR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF
TIME TO MAKE THE FILING TIMELY.
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE A
LEGITIMATE, NONFRIVOLOUS ARGUMENT.
GOING TO GET EQUITABLE TOLLING HERE.
THERE, THIS HAPPENED TO YOU, YOU WERE REMOVED FROM THE
PREMISES, YOU KNEW THAT YOU HAD A CLAIM THAT ACCRUED OUT OF
10
THAT DAY AND YOU HAD TWO YEARS TO FILE YOUR ACTION, AND YOU
11
TOOK THREE.
12
BRING TO THE COURT THAT IS NOT FRIVOLOUS, TRY IT.
13
BUT I DON'T SEE HOW YOU'RE

YOU WERE AWARE, YOU WERE
SO IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A BASIS THAT YOU CAN
MR. STUART:
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M NOT CERTAIN I
14
FOLLOW THE COURT'S RULING WITH REGARDS TO WHICH CLAIMS WERE
15
DISMISSED.
16
THE COURT:
17
WHOLE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
18
EVENTS THAT HAPPENED ON AUGUST 15TH, 2010 THAT'S SUBJECT TO A
19
TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
20
YOU FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE OF THOSE APPLIES, BECAUSE I CAN'T.
21
ANYTHING THAT'S BASED ON THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN YOU AND
22
MR. DOYNE THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2009 IS DISMISSED
23
WITH PREJUDICE IF IT HAS A TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS
24
THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT.
25
I CAN'T FIGURE OUT YOUR CLAIMS, SIR.
THE
ANY CLAIM THAT IS BASED ON THE
AND AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, ALL THOSE THINGS RELATE TO
ER 62
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 Filed
DktEntry:
09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1466
of of
18107
(161 of14
514)
YOUR 1983 AND YOUR 1985 CLAIMS, ALL OF WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO A
TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
GOING TO COME BACK AND ALLEGE THOSE THINGS BECAUSE YOU'RE PAST
THE TIME TO DO IT.
MR. STUART:
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE
AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT
HAS BEEN DISMISSED.
THE COURT JUST SAID THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
NOT OBJECT TO AT THIS POINT.
THE COURT:
THAT POSITION, BY THE WAY, WE WOULD
THE COMPLAINT HAS TO BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
10
I CANNOT ASCERTAIN FROM THE COMPLAINT WHAT YOUR CLAIMS ARE AS
11
OPPOSED TO THESE BROADER CLAIMS FOR PLAINTIFFS THAT ARE
12
DISMISSED FROM THE CASE.
13
COMPLAINT STATING YOUR CLAIMS SPECIFIC TO YOU AND GIVE ME A
14
COMPLAINT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 8 AND THAT ADDRESSES EACH AND
15
EVERY DEFENDANT THAT YOU'RE CHARGING AND SETS FORTH PLAUSIBLE
16
FACTS AS TO HOW THESE PEOPLE VIOLATED WHATEVER THE CLAIMS ARE
17
AGAINST YOU, YOU CAN AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO DO THAT.
18
WEEKS, YOU DON'T -- OR 20 DAYS YOU DON'T DO THAT, THEN THE CASE
19
IS DISMISSED.
20
21
MR. STUART:
SO IF YOU WANT TO FILE AN AMENDED
I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT.
IF IN TWO
MAY WE
REQUEST THAT THAT DISMISSAL BE WITH PREJUDICE RIGHT NOW?
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. STUART:
24
THE COURT:
DO DEFENDANTS WANT TO BE HEARD ON THAT?
25
MR. WOLFE:
YOUR HONOR, I THOUGHT YOUR POINT WAS WELL
ER 63
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO TAKE AN APPEAL?

YES, MA'AM.
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 Filed
DktEntry:
09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1567
of of
18107
(162 of15
514)
TAKEN ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF AN APPEAL BY COMINGLING BASICALLY
THREE PLAINTIFFS AND COMPLICATED BY THE COMPLICATED NATURE OF
THE COMPLAINT.
ANY LUCK TRYING TO SORT OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, ESPECIALLY WHEN
ALL OF THESE ISSUES PUT IN, PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF APPELLATE
ISSUES IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER ISSUES MAY BE GOING ON HERE.
I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN THE AMENDMENT CONCEPT.
8
9
I'M NOT SURE THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD HAVE
THE COURT:
NO.
MR. STUART, I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU
TRY TO SHORTCUT THIS TO TAKE WHAT I THINK WOULD JUST BE A
10
NIGHTMARE FOR SOME APPELLATE LAW CLERK TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT.
11
I'M GIVING YOU 20 DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
12
REPRESENTING YOUR INTERESTS IN THIS CASE.
13
SO
YOU CAN'T APPEAL THE INTERESTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
14
COALITION FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN OR LEXEVIA BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
15
REPRESENT THEM.
16
PREJUDICE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
17
THEY MAY HAVE LEGITIMATE CLAIMS.
18
BECAUSE I DIDN'T SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE
19
THEM OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT.
20
SO I'M NOT DISMISSING THEIR CLAIMS WITH
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE
I AM GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE A COMPLAINT
21
AND PUT IT BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE NEXT 20 DAYS THAT IS
22
SPECIFIC TO YOUR CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION.
23
NOT TO FILE THAT COMPLAINT, THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED, AND IT
24
WILL AT THAT POINT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR YOUR FAILURE
25
TO PROSECUTE, HAVING FILED THIS CLAIM AND THEN CHOOSING NOT TO
ER 64
IF YOU CHOOSE
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 Filed
DktEntry:
09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1668
of of
18107
(163 of16
514)
PURSUE IT.
NINTH CIRCUIT, HAVE AT IT.
AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL THAT DECISION TO THE
MR. STUART:
AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT WOULD
SHORT-CIRCUIT A LOT OF THE INTERIM, CLEARLY GIVEN WHERE THE
COURT IS GOING WITH THIS, THIS MAKES THE PROCEEDING OF THE CASE
WITHOUT -- IN THIS SORT OF A POSTURE POTENTIALLY WASTEFUL FOR
ALL PARTIES, AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO THAT, AND GIVEN THE
COURT HAS EXPRESSED, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BURDEN THE COURT
FURTHER WITH THAT PROCESS.
10
IT SEEMS ME TO MAKE A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF SENSE TO CERTIFY THIS FOR APPEAL IMMEDIATELY.
11
THE COURT:
I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
I'M GOING TO
12
GIVE YOU 20 DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT.
THE MOTION TO
13
DISMISS IS GRANTED.
14
COMPLAINT SPECIFIC TO YOURSELF, REPRESENTING ONLY YOU AND YOUR
15
INTERESTS, AND NAMING ONLY THOSE DEFENDANTS THAT YOU CAN SET
16
FORTH PLAUSIBLE FACTS AS TO WHAT CAUSES OF ACTION THEY
17
VIOLATED.
18
CAUSES OF ACTION LISTED IN THEM WHERE I CAN'T ASCERTAIN WHAT,
19
IN FACT, IS THE COUNT.
YOU HAVE 20 DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE COUNTS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE
20
EXAMPLE AGAIN, COUNT 2, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
21
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS BREACH OF DUTY,
22
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 1983, AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATE COURT
23
CLAIMS.
24
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION, OR IS IT AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
25
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM?
WHAT DOES THAT ACCOUNT FOR?
ER 65
IS IT A 1983 CLAIM FOR A
Case:
Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
Document
ID: 9287311
198 Filed
DktEntry:
09/09/14
11-3 Page
Page:
1769
of of
18107
(164 of17
514)
YOU CAN'T PUT THEM IN THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION.
THEY
HAVE TO BE LISTED SEPARATELY, AND YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE
DEFENDANTS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPECIFIC FACTS ADDRESSED
TO YOU THAT GIVE RISE TO THOSE COUNTS.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANOTHER COMPLAINT LIKE THIS, SIR,
SO YOU HAVE 20 DAYS TO FILE SOMETHING IN THIS COURT THAT MAKES
SENSE.
STATUS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS FILING RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS BY ALL
THE DEFENDANTS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THEM COMING IN PIECEMEAL.
10
AND THEN AFTER WE GET THAT AND IT'S SERVED, I'LL SET A
ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL FOR TODAY.
11
MR. STUART:
YOUR HONOR, WILL THE COURT BE ISSUING A
12
WRITTEN ORDER, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FOLLOW?
13
REQUEST JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE.
14
THINGS THAT TO ME ARE INCONSISTENT, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT
15
TO --
16
17
THE COURT:
BUT MY NOTES STILL REFLECT SOME
ALL RIGHT.
I'LL GIVE YOU A WRITTEN ORDER,
BUT YOUR AMENDED COMPLAINT IS STILL DUE 20 DAYS FROM TODAY.
18
MR. STUART:
19
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
20
MR. GREEN:
21
MR. WOLFE:
22
23
THAT, WE WOULD
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
(COURT IN RECESS AT 2:26 P.M.)

***
END OF REQUESTED TRANSCRIPT ***
24
-OOO-
25
ER 66
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731112 DktEntry:
Filed 09/17/13
11-3 Page
Page:1 70
of 2of 107
(165 of 514)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

FAMILIES AND CHILDREN,
LEXEVIA, PC, COLBERN C.
STUART,
vs.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
[Doc. Nos. 4, 6]

Defendants.
18
19
Plaintiffs,
This matter is before the court on plaintiff Colbern C. Stuarts ex parte petition
for permission to file documents electronically in this action. [Doc. No. 6.] The court
GRANTS this motion and instructs plaintiff to contact the Clerk of Court, (619)-5575600, for further instructions.
Also before court is plaintiffs ex parte application for leave to file and/or
supplement motion for harassment restraining order. [Doc. No. 4.] Plaintiff filed this
application after receiving a letter from Kristine Nesthus, Esq., counsel for the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, informing plaintiff that he had improperly
included the addresses of California judges in his complaint. The court has since
ordered that plaintiffs complaint be sealed. [Doc. Nos. 5, 9.] Thus, plaintiffs ex parte
ER 67
-1-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
928731112 DktEntry:
Filed 09/17/13
11-3 Page
Page:2 71
of 2of 107
(166 of 514)
1 application [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT. If plaintiff desires to amend his

2 complaint, he should consult the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5 DATED: September 16, 2013
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ER 68
-2-
13cv1944
Case:Case
14-56140
3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM
10/22/2014
ID:
Document
9287311 5 DktEntry:
Filed 08/26/13
11-3 Page
Page:1 72
of 1of 107
(167 of 514)
MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case Name: California Coalition for Families and

Children, et al. v. San Diego County Bar
Association, et al.
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
Ct. Deputy Lori Hernandez
Case No:
13cv1944 CAB (BLM)
Rptr. Tape:
Plaintiffs complaint [Doc. No. 1] contains confidential information. Accordingly, the

clerk of court is DIRECTED TO SEAL plaintiffs complaint.
Date:
August 26, 2013

Initials: DWG
ER 69
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014
CM/ECF - casd DktEntry: 11-3

ID: 9287311
Page: 73 of 107
(168 of 514)
APPEAL,CLOSED,SEALDC
U.S. District Court

Southern District of California (San Diego)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB
California Coalition for Families and Children. et al v. San
Diego County Bar Association et al
Assigned to: Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt
Demand: $9,999,000
Case in other court: USCA, 14-56140
Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Date Filed: 08/20/2013

Date Terminated: 07/09/2014
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt
Organization
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
California Coalition for Families and
Children.
a Delaware Corporation
represented by Eric W. Ching

402 W. Broadway, Ste 2500
San Diego, CA 92101
510-449-1091
Fax: 619-615-0904
Email: eching100@gmail.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Dean Browning Webb
The Law Offices of Dean Browning
Webb
515 East 39th Street
Vancouver, WA 98663
(503)629-2176
Fax: (503)629-9527
Email: ricoman1968@aol.com
PRO HAC VICE
Plaintiff
Lexevia, PC
Plaintiff
Colbern C. Stuart
Suite 102
San Diego, CA 92110
(858) 504-0171
Pro Se allowed to E-File
represented by Colbern C Stuart , III

Suite 102
San Diego, CA 92110
(858) 504-0171
Fax: (619) 231-9143
1/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 74 of 107
(169 of 514)
Email: cole.stuart@lexevia.com
V.
Defendant
San Diego County Bar Association
a California Corporation
represented by Stephen D Lucas

Lucas and Haverkamp
4350 Executive Drive
Suite 260
San Diego, CA 92121
(858)535-4000
Fax: (858)535-4001
Email: slucas@lucashaverkamp.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
San Diego County Sheriff's
Department
a municipal entity
Defendant
William D. Gore
an individual
represented by Ricky R Sanchez

County of San Diego Office of County
Counsel
Room 355
San Diego, CA 92101-2469
(619) 531-4874
Fax: (619) 531-6005
Email: ricky.sanchez@sdcounty.ca.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
San Diego, County of
a municipal entity
represented by Ricky R Sanchez

(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Superior Court of San Diego County
a municipal entity
represented by Matthew L Green

Best Best and Krieger LLP
655 West Broadway
15th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)525-1300
Fax: (619)233-6118
2/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 75 of 107
(170 of 514)
Email: matthew.green@bbklaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Robert J. Trentacostsa
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Michael Roddy
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Judicial Council
a municipal entity

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Administrative Office of the Courts
a municipal entity

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Tani G. Cantilsakauye
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Commission on Judicial Performance
a municipal entity
represented by Richard F Wolfe

Office of the Attorney General
110 West A Street
Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)645-2482
Fax: (619)645-2012
Email: Richard.Wolfe@doj.ca.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Lawrenece J. Simi
an individual

3/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 76 of 107
(171 of 514)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Brad Batson
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
National Family Justice Center
Alliance
a California Corporation
represented by Charles R Grebing

Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP
600 West Broadway
Suite 1200
(619)232-8151
Fax: (619)232-4665
Email: cgrebing@wingertlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Dwayne H Stein
Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Juskie
LLP
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway
Suite 1200
San Diego, CA 92103
(619) 232-8151
Fax: (619) 232-4665
Email: dstein@wingertlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Lisa Schall
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Lorna Alksne
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Off Duty Officers, Inc.
a business entity of unknown form
represented by Bruno William Katz

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker, LLP
4/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 77 of 107
(172 of 514)
655 West Broadway

Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 321-6200
Fax: (619) 321-6201
Email: Bruno.Katz@wilsonelser.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Kelly Aileen Van Nort
Wilson Elser
655 West Broadway
Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 321-6200
Fax: (619) 321-6201
Email: kelly.vannort@wilsonelser.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Christine Goldsmith
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Jeannie Lowe
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
William Mcadam
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Edlene Mckenzie
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Joel Wohlfeil
an idividual

LEAD ATTORNEY
5/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 78 of 107
(173 of 514)
Defendant
Carole Baldwin
an individual
represented by Timothy R. Pestotnik

Pestotnik & Gold, LLP
501 West Broadway
Suite 1025
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 237-5080
Fax: (619) 342-8020
Email: tim@tprglaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Laury Baldwin
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Baldwin and Baldwin
a California professional corporation

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Larry Corrigan
an individual
represented by Rachael H. Mills

Offices of James R. Rogers
125 South Highway 101
Suite 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
858-792-9900
Fax: 858-792-9509
Email: rmills@jrrlaw.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
William Hargraeves
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Hargraeves & Taylor, PC

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
6/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Terry Chucas
an individual
Page: 79 of 107
(174 of 514)
represented by Gina Elizabeth Och

Murchison and Cumming LLP
801 South Grand Avenue
Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90017-4624
(213)623-7400
Fax: (213)623-6336
Email: goch@murchisonlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Kenneth H Moreno
Murchison and Cumming
750 B Street
Suite 2550
(619)544-6838
Fax: (619)544-1568
Email: kmoreno@murchisonlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Meridith Levin
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Allen Slattery, Inc.
a California Corporation, a Corporation

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Janis Stocks
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Stocks & Colburn
a California professional corporation

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Dr. Stephen Doyne
an individual
represented by Christopher J Zopatti

Callahan McCune and Willis
2601 Main Street
7/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 80 of 107
(175 of 514)
Tustin, CA 92614
(949)261-2872
Fax: (949)261-6060
Email: czopatti@ctsclaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Joan E Trimble
Callahan, Thompson, Sherman &
Caudill, LLP
2601 Main Street
Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92614
(949)261-2872
Fax: (949)261-6060
Email: jtrimble@ctsclaw.com
Defendant
Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc.
a professional corporation
represented by Christopher J Zopatti

LEAD ATTORNEY
Joan E Trimble
Defendant
Susan Griffin
an individual
represented by Gina Elizabeth Och

LEAD ATTORNEY
Kenneth H Moreno
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Dr. Lori Love
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc.
a California corporatino

LEAD ATTORNEY
8/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 81 of 107
(176 of 514)
Defendant
Robert A. Simon, PH.D.
an individual
represented by Brian A Rawers

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith
550 West C Street
Suite 800
(619)233-1006
Fax: (619)233-8627
Email: rawers@lbbslaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
American College of Forensic
Examiners Institute
represented by Gregory P Goonan

The Affinity Law Group APC
5755 Oberlin Drive
Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 750-1615
Fax: (619) 243-0088
Email: ggoonan@affinity-law.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas J. Schafbuch
Center for National Threat Assessment
2750 East Sunshine Street
Springfield, MO 65807
(417) 881-2533
Fax: (417) 881-4702
Email: tom.schafbuch@acfei.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
Defendant
Sharon Blanchet
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Dwayne H Stein
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
9/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, &

Kalemenkarian
Page: 82 of 107
(177 of 514)

LEAD ATTORNEY
Dwayne H Stein
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Marilyn Bierer
an individual
represented by Daniel S. Agle

Klienedinst PC
501 West Broadway
Suite 600
(619)239-8131
Fax: (619)238-8707
Email: dagle@klinedinstlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Bierer and Associates
a California Profesional Corporation
represented by Daniel S. Agle

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Jeffrey Fritz
an individual
represented by Kyle M Van Dyke

Hurst & Hurst
701 B Street
Suite 1400
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-0016
Fax: (619) 236-8569
Email: kvandyke@hurst-hurst.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Basie and Fritz
a professional corporation
represented by Kyle M Van Dyke

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Robert O'Block
an individual
represented by Gregory P Goonan

LEAD ATTORNEY
10/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 83 of 107
(178 of 514)
Thomas J. Schafbuch
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
Defendant
Lori Clark Viviano
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Dwayne H Stein
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano

LEAD ATTORNEY
Dwayne H Stein
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Steven Jahr
an idividual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Michael Groch
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Emily Garson
an individual
Defendant
Jan Goldsmith
an individual
11/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 84 of 107
(179 of 514)
Defendant
San Diego, City of
a municiple entity
represented by Rayna A. Stephan

Office of The San Diego City Attorney
1200 Third Avenue
Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)533-5800
Fax: (619)533-5856
Email: rstephan@sandiego.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
a corporation
represented by Christine M La Pinta

Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek
750 B Street
2100 Symphony Towers
(619)685-3003
Fax: (619)702-6850
Email: lapinta@scmv.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Kristine Nesthus
an individual

LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Brian Watkins
an individual
Defendant
Ken Smith
an individual
Defendant
Marilou Marcq
an individual
Defendant
CSB-Investigations
an entity of unknown form
Date Filed
Docket Text
12/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
08/20/2013
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 85 of 107
(180 of 514)
1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Administrative Office of the Courts,

Lorna Alksne, Allen Slattery, Inc., American College of Forensic Examiners
Institute, Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian, Carole Baldwin,
Laury Baldwin, Baldwin and Baldwin, Basie and Fritz, Brad Batson, Marilyn
Bierer, Bierer and Associates, Sharon Blanchet, Tani G. Cantilsakauye, Terry
Chucas, Lori Clark Viviano, Commission on Judicial Performance, Larry
Corrigan, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc., Jeffrey Fritz, Christine
Goldsmith, William D. Gore, Susan Griffin, William Hargraeves, Hargraeves &
Taylor, PC, Judicial Council, Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano, Meridith Levin,
Dr. Lori Love, Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc., Jeannie Lowe, William
Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, National Family Justice Center Alliance, Robert
O'Block, Off Duty Officers, Inc., Michael Roddy, San Diego County Bar
Association, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San Diego, County of, Lisa
Schall, Lawrenece J. Simi, Robert A. Simon, PH.D., Janis Stocks, Stocks &
Colburn, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel
Wohlfeil (filing fee $400 receipt number CAS054091), filed by Lexevia, PC,
California Coalition for Families and Children., Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments:
# 1 Complaint Part 2, # 2 Exhibit 1 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit 1 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit 1 Part
3, # 5 Exhibit 1 Part 4, # 6 Exhibit 1 Part 5, # 7 Exhibit 1 Part 6, # 8 Exhibit 1 Part
7, # 9 Exhibit 1 Part 8, # 10 Exhibit 1 Part 9, # 11 Exhibit 1 Part 10, # 12 Exhibit 1
Part 11, # 13 Exhibit 2, # 14 Exhibit 3, # 15 Exhibit 4 - 35, # 16 Exhibit 36 - 37
Part 1, # 17 Exhibit 37 Part 2, # 18 Exhibit 37 Part 3, # 19 Exhibit 37 Part 4, # 20
Exhibit 44, # 21 Civil Case Cover Sheet).
The new case number is 3:13-cv-1944-DMS-BLM. Judge Dana M. Sabraw and
Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major are assigned to the case. (Stuart, Colbern
C.)(dls) (cap). (sxr-v). (Entered: 08/21/2013)
08/20/2013
2 Summons Issued.
Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and
serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. Summons has
been provided to plaintiffs not receiving notice electronically. (dls) (cap).
(Entered: 08/21/2013)
08/21/2013
3 Minute Order: Judge Dana M. Sabraw recuses from this case and requests another
judge be drawn and assigned. Judge Thomas J. Whelan added to the case. Judge
Dana M. Sabraw is no longer assigned to case and Judge Thomas J. Whelan is
now assigned to the case. The new case number is 13-CV-1944-W-BLM. (no
document attached) (kcm) (cap). (Entered: 08/21/2013)
08/22/2013
Minute Order: Judge Thomas J. Whelan recuses from this case and requests
another judge be drawn and assigned. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo randomly
assigned to the case. The new case number is 13CV01944-CAB-BLM. (All nonregistered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no document attached) (dls)
(Entered: 08/22/2013)
08/26/2013
4 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Harassment

Restraining Order by Colbern C. Stuart. (yeb) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
08/26/2013
5 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs complaint [Doc. No. 1 ] contains confidential

information. Accordingly, the clerk of court is directed to seal plaintiffs
complaint.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered:
13/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 86 of 107
(181 of 514)
08/26/2013)
09/09/2013
6 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Utilize the Electronic Court Filing

System by Colbern C. Stuart. (yeb) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
09/10/2013
7 Notice of Document Discrepancies by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo Accepting

Document: Redacted Verified Complaint from Colbern C. Stuart. Non-compliance
with local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 7.1: Missing table of contents, OTHER: Missing
proof of service. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The document is to be filed nunc
pro tunc to date received. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 09/9/2013.
(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered:
09/11/2013)
09/10/2013
8 REDACTED Verified Complaint 1 by Colbern C. Stuart. Nunc pro tunc

08/30/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb)
Modified on 9/12/2013 (sealed per DWG from CAB Chamber) (kcm). Modified
on 9/13/2013 to edit text (leh). (sxr-v). (Entered: 09/11/2013)
09/12/2013
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Christine Goldsmith, Lisa

Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil
served. (yeb) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
09/12/2013
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Colbern C. Stuart re 4 MOTION for Leave to

File for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Harassment Restraining Order
(yeb) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
09/13/2013
9 MINUTE ORDER: The court directs the Clerk of Court to seal plaintiffs redacted
complaint. [Doc. No. 8 .](All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)
(yeb) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
09/17/2013
12 ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion for Leave to File supplement motion for
harassment restraining order; and granting 6 Ex Parte Application for leave to file
documents electronically. The Court instructs plaintiff to contact the Clerk of
Court for further instructions. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on
9/16/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered:
09/17/2013)
09/20/2013
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Colbern C. Stuart (yeb) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
09/20/2013
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Jeannie Lowe, William

Mcadam, Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County,
Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil served. (yeb) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
09/26/2013
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by William Mcadam, Joel Wohlfeil, Jeannie

Lowe, Michael Roddy, Christine Goldsmith, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Superior
Court of San Diego County, Lorna Alksne. William Mcadam, Joel Wohlfeil,
Jeannie Lowe, Michael Roddy, Christine Goldsmith, Robert J. Trentacostsa,
Superior Court of San Diego County, Lorna Alksne served. (Stuart, Colbern)
(yeb). (Entered: 09/26/2013)
09/30/2013
16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Lorna Alksne, Christine

Goldsmith, Jeannie Lowe, William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Michael Roddy,
Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel
Wohlfeil. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for
Judicial Notice, # 3 Declaration of Kristine P. Nesthus)(Green, Matthew)Attorney
14/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 87 of 107
(182 of 514)
Matthew L Green added to party Lorna Alksne(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L

Green added to party Christine Goldsmith(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green
added to party Jeannie Lowe(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party
William Mcadam(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Edlene
Mckenzie(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Michael
Roddy(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Lisa Schall(pty:dft),
Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Superior Court of San Diego
County(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Robert J.
Trentacostsa(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Joel
Wohlfeil(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 09/30/2013)
10/31/2013
17 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1

Declaration Stuart Declaration and Exhibits ISO Ex Parte Applicaiton)(Stuart,
Colbern)Attorney Colbern C Stuart, III added to party Colbern C. Stuart(pty:pla)
(yeb). (Entered: 10/31/2013)
11/05/2013
18 ORDER granting 17 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs
may file a response brief limited to thirty-five (35) pages in length. Defendants are
allowed twenty (20) pages for their reply. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo on 11/5/2013. (yeb) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
11/07/2013
19 MOTION to Strike Matter In Support of Motion To Dismiss Complaint by

Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities)(Stuart,
Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 11/07/2013)
11/08/2013
20 ORDER Continuing Hearing on Defendants 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure

to State a Claim . Motion Hearing continued to12/19/2013 03:30 PM before Judge
Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 11/8/2013.
(yeb) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
11/08/2013
21 RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Strike Matter In Support of Motion

To Dismiss Complaint, 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed
by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb).
(Entered: 11/08/2013)
11/14/2013
22 MOTION to Dismiss by Brad Batson, Commission on Judicial Performance,

Lawrenece J. Simi. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support
of Motion to Dismiss by Defendants, # 2 Proof of Service)(Wolfe,
Richard)Attorney Richard F Wolfe added to party Brad Batson(pty:dft), Attorney
Richard F Wolfe added to party Commission on Judicial Performance(pty:dft),
Attorney Richard F Wolfe added to party Lawrenece J. Simi(pty:dft)(yeb).
(Entered: 11/14/2013)
11/14/2013
23 MOTION for Sanctions by Superior Court of San Diego County. (Attachments: #

1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Request for Judicial
Notice)(Green, Matthew)(yeb). (Entered: 11/14/2013)
11/21/2013
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Meridith Levin served.

(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)
11/21/2013
25 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Hargraeves & Taylor, PC

served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)
11/21/2013
26 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. National Family Justice
15/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 88 of 107
(183 of 514)
Center Alliance served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/21/2013
27 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Judicial Council served.

11/21/2013
28 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Basie and Fritz served.

11/21/2013
29 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Bierer and Associates

11/21/2013
30 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Marilyn Bierer served.

(Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)
11/21/2013
31 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Ashworth, Blanchet,

Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered:
11/21/2013)
11/21/2013
32 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Law Offices of Lori Clark

Viviano served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)
11/21/2013
33 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Lori Clark Viviano served.

11/21/2013
34 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Stocks & Colburn served.

11/21/2013
35 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Janis Stocks served.

11/21/2013
36 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Allen Slattery, Inc. served.

11/21/2013
37 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Meridith Levin served.

11/21/2013
38 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Hargraeves & Taylor, PC

served. (Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)
11/26/2013
39 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants the San Diego County Superior
Court, Robert J. Trentacosta, Michael M. Roddy, Lisa Schall, Lorna A. Alksne,
Christine K. Goldsmith, Jeannie Lowe, William H. McAdam, Jr., Edlene C.
McKenzie, and Joel R. Wohlfeil by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of
Points and Authorities ISO Motion for Sanctions, # 2 Declaration ISO Motion for
Sanctions)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 11/26/2013)
11/27/2013
40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1

Complaint,,,,,,, by Allen Slattery, Inc., Carole Baldwin, Laury Baldwin, Baldwin
and Baldwin, William Hargraeves, Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, Meridith Levin,
Janis Stocks, Stocks & Colburn. (Pestotnik, Timothy)Attorney Timothy R.
Pestotnik added to party Allen Slattery, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R.
Pestotnik added to party Carole Baldwin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik
added to party Laury Baldwin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to
party Baldwin and Baldwin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to
party William Hargraeves(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to party
16/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 89 of 107
(184 of 514)
Hargraeves & Taylor, PC(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to party

Meridith Levin(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to party Janis
Stocks(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy R. Pestotnik added to party Stocks &
Colburn(pty:dft) (sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)
11/27/2013
41 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Love and Alvarez

Psychology, Inc. served. (Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District
Judge listed) (sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)
11/27/2013
42 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. San Diego, County of

served. (Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District Judge listed) (sjt).
(Entered: 11/27/2013)
11/27/2013
43 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Dr. Lori Love served.

(Stuart, Colbern)(sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)
11/27/2013
44 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. San Diego County Sheriff's

Department served. (Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District Judge
listed) (sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)
11/27/2013
45 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. San Diego County Bar

Association served. (Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District Judge
listed)(sjt). (Entered: 11/27/2013)
11/27/2013
46 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Jeffrey Fritz served.

(Stuart, Colbern) (QC mailer sent re: wrong District Judge listed)(sjt). (Entered:
11/27/2013)
12/02/2013
47 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Joint Motion for Extension of
Time to File Responsive Pleadings. The moving defendants shall respond to the
complaint no later than January 2, 2014, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 12/2/2013. (yeb) (Entered:
12/02/2013)
12/02/2013
48 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Basie and Fritz. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of

Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of Kyle Van Dyke, #
3 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, #
6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11
Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16
Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 15, # 19 Exhibit 16, # 20 Exhibit 17, #
21 Exhibit 18, # 22 Exhibit 19, # 23 Exhibit 20)(Van Dyke, Kyle)Attorney Kyle
M Van Dyke added to party Basie and Fritz(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/02/2013)
12/03/2013
49 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Marilyn Bierer, Bierer and
Associates. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for
Judicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7
Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Proof
of Service)(Agle, Daniel)Attorney Daniel S. Agle added to party Marilyn
Bierer(pty:dft), Attorney Daniel S. Agle added to party Bierer and
Associates(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)
12/03/2013
50 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Jeffrey Fritz. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of

Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of Kyle Van Dyke, #
3 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, #
17/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 90 of 107
(185 of 514)
6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11

Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16
Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 15, # 19 Exhibit 16, # 20 Exhibit 17, #
21 Exhibit 18, # 22 Exhibit 19, # 23 Exhibit 20)(Van Dyke, Kyle)Attorney Kyle
M Van Dyke added to party Jeffrey Fritz(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)
12/03/2013
51 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Judicial Council.

(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for Judicial
Notice)(Green, Matthew)Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Judicial
Council(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)
12/03/2013
52 MOTION to Dismiss by National Family Justice Center Alliance. (Attachments: #

1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Proof of
Service)(Grebing, Charles)Attorney Charles R Grebing added to party National
Family Justice Center Alliance(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)
12/03/2013
53 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint by Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, &

Kalemenkarian, Sharon Blanchet. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and
Authorities iso Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, # 2 Request for Judicial
Notice iso Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, # 3 Proof of Service)(Grebing,
Charles)Attorney Charles R Grebing added to party Ashworth, Blanchet,
Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian(pty:dft), Attorney Charles R Grebing added to party
Sharon Blanchet(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/03/2013)
12/04/2013
54 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintifs' Complaint by Lori Clark Viviano, Law Offices of

Lori Clark Viviano. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2
Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles)Attorney
Charles R Grebing added to party Lori Clark Viviano(pty:dft), Attorney Charles R
Grebing added to party Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano(pty:dft) (yeb).
(Entered: 12/04/2013)
12/05/2013
55 RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Strike Matter In Support of Motion

To Dismiss Complaint filed by Lorna Alksne, Christine Goldsmith, Jeannie Lowe,
William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court
of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil. (Green, Matthew).
(jah). (Entered: 12/05/2013)
12/05/2013
56 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Colbern C.

Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Stuart, Colbern) (ag). (Entered:
12/05/2013)
12/05/2013
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Colbern C. Stuart.

(Stuart, Colbern) (ag). (Entered: 12/05/2013)
12/06/2013
58 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Dismiss (Supplemental to

Declaration of Colbern C. Stuart filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart, Colbern)
(dlg). (Entered: 12/06/2013)
12/09/2013
59 NOTICE of Appearance by Dwayne Hoover Stein on behalf of National Family

Justice Center Alliance (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stein,
Dwayne)Attorney Dwayne Hoover Stein added to party National Family Justice
Center Alliance(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
12/09/2013
60 NOTICE of Appearance by Dwayne Hoover Stein on behalf of Lori Clark
18/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 91 of 107
(186 of 514)
Viviano, Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)

(Stein, Dwayne)Attorney Dwayne Hoover Stein added to party Lori Clark
Viviano(pty:dft), Attorney Dwayne Hoover Stein added to party Law Offices of
Lori Clark Viviano(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
12/09/2013
61 NOTICE of Appearance by Dwayne Hoover Stein on behalf of Ashworth,

Blanchet, Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian, Sharon Blanchet (Attachments: # 1 Proof
of Service)(Stein, Dwayne)Attorney Dwayne Hoover Stein added to party
Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian(pty:dft), Attorney Dwayne
Hoover Stein added to party Sharon Blanchet(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
12/09/2013
62 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to
Dismiss Complaint by William D. Gore, San Diego, County of. (Attachments: # 1
Memo of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint, # 2
Proof of Service)(Sanchez, Ricky)Attorney Ricky R Sanchez added to party
William D. Gore(pty:dft), Attorney Ricky R Sanchez added to party San Diego,
County of(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered: 12/09/2013)
12/10/2013
63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by William D. Gore, San Diego, County of re 62

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to
Dismiss Complaint Amended Proof of Service (Sanchez, Ricky) (dlg). (Entered:
12/10/2013)
12/10/2013
64 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Robert

A. Simon, PH.D.. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Rawers, Brian)Attorney
Brian A Rawers added to party Robert A. Simon, PH.D.(pty:dft) (dlg). (Entered:
12/10/2013)
12/11/2013
65 NOTICE by National Family Justice Center Alliance re 52 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Errata (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb).
(Entered: 12/11/2013)
12/11/2013
66 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Brad Batson,

Commission on Judicial Performance, Lawrenece J. Simi. (Attachments: # 1 Proof
of Service)(Wolfe, Richard) (yeb). (Entered: 12/11/2013)
12/11/2013
67 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction , MOTION to Dismiss by Dr. Stephen Doyne, Dr. Stephen Doyne,
Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for Judicial
Notice)(Trimble, Joan)Attorney Joan E Trimble added to party Dr. Stephen
Doyne(pty:dft), Attorney Joan E Trimble added to party Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc.
(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/11/2013)
12/12/2013
68 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher J Zopatti on behalf of Dr. Stephen Doyne,

Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc. (Zopatti, Christopher)Attorney Christopher J Zopatti
added to party Dr. Stephen Doyne(pty:dft), Attorney Christopher J Zopatti added
to party Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/12/2013)
12/12/2013
69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Superior

Court of San Diego County. (Green, Matthew) (yeb). (Entered: 12/12/2013)
12/12/2013
70 RESPONSE to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

filed by Lorna Alksne, Christine Goldsmith, Jeannie Lowe, William Mcadam,
Edlene Mckenzie, Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego
19/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 92 of 107
(187 of 514)
County, Robert J. Trentacostsa. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice

Supplemental, # 2 Objections to Dec. of Stuart)(Green, Matthew)(yeb). (Entered:
12/12/2013)
12/12/2013
71 RESPONSE in Opposition re 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

(Plaintiff's OBJECTION to Late-Filed Reply) filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart,
Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 12/12/2013)
12/12/2013
72 REPLY to Response to Motion re 19 MOTION to Strike Matter In Support of

Motion To Dismiss Complaint filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration Declaration of Colbern C. Stuart ISO Reply To Motion to Strike
Matter in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered:
12/12/2013)
12/12/2013
73 MOTION to Dismiss by Terry Chucas, Susan Griffin. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of

Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Proof
of Service)(Och, Gina)Attorney Gina Elizabeth Och added to party Terry
Chucas(pty:dft), Attorney Gina Elizabeth Och added to party Susan
Griffin(pty:dft) Modified on 12/13/2013 to remove non-filers per doc. no. 74
(yeb). (Entered: 12/12/2013)
12/12/2013
74 NOTICE by Terry Chucas re 73 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Terry Chucas and

Susan Griffin at Docket No. 73 incorrectly reflects the filing parties. Motion to
Dismiss filed by Terry Chucas and Susan Griffin, only. (Och, Gina) (yeb).
(Entered: 12/12/2013)
12/13/2013
75 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer , Joint MOTION for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply by San Diego County Bar Association. (Lucas,
Stephen)Attorney Stephen D Lucas added to party San Diego County Bar
Association(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/13/2013)
12/16/2013
76 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth H Moreno on behalf of Terry Chucas, Susan

Griffin (Moreno, Kenneth)Attorney Kenneth H Moreno added to party Terry
Chucas(pty:dft), Attorney Kenneth H Moreno added to party Susan
Griffin(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/16/2013)
12/17/2013
77 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Administrative Office of

the Courts served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 12/17/2013)
12/17/2013
78 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Tani G. Cantilsakauye

12/17/2013
79 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Larry Corrigan served.

12/17/2013
80 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Robert O'Block served.

12/17/2013
81 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. American College of

Forensic Examiners Institute served. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered:
12/17/2013)
12/17/2013
82 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Colbern C. Stuart. Sharon Blanchet served.

20/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 93 of 107
(188 of 514)
12/18/2013
83 MINUTE ORDER: The hearing on pending motions at docket numbers 16 , 19 ,

22 , and 23 , scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.,
is rescheduled to December 19, 2013 at 2:00 p.m..(yeb) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
12/18/2013
84 ORDER granting 64 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Robert A. Simon,

PH.D. answer due 1/6/2014. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on
12/18/2013. (yeb) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
12/19/2013
85 NOTICE of Appearance by Gregory P Goonan on behalf of American College of

Forensic Examiners Institute, Robert O'Block (Goonan, Gregory)Attorney
Gregory P Goonan added to party American College of Forensic Examiners
Institute(pty:dft), Attorney Gregory P Goonan added to party Robert
O'Block(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 12/19/2013)
12/19/2013
86 Minute Order for proceedings held before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo: Motion
Hearing held 12/19/2013. Court grants defense 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim; denies Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Strike; grants defense 22 Motion
to Dismiss; and denies defense 23 Motion for Sanctions.The court dismisses the
Complaint in its entirety without prejudice. An Amended Complaint is to be filed
with the court within 20 days of today's date. Plaintiff's oral motion under Rule 54
is denied. Court to issue further written Order for the parties. Because the
complaint is dismissed, all other pending motions filed with the court are deemed
withdrawn and the Motion Hearing currently set for 1/24/2014 02:00 PM is
hereby vacated. (Court Reporter/ECR Mauralee Ramirez). (Plaintiff Attorney
Colbern Stuart).(Defendant Attorney Matthew L. Green and Richard Wolfe). (no
document attached) (lmh) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
12/20/2013
87 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachael H. Mills on behalf of Larry Corrigan, Dr.

Lori Love, Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc. (Mills, Rachael)Attorney Rachael
H. Mills added to party Larry Corrigan(pty:dft), Attorney Rachael H. Mills added
to party Dr. Lori Love(pty:dft), Attorney Rachael H. Mills added to party Love
and Alvarez Psychology, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 12/20/2013)
12/23/2013
88 ORDER on Motions to Dismiss [Doc. No. 16 ] and Motions for Sanctions [Doc.
No. 23 ]. It is so ordered the motions to dismiss of the Superior Court and
Commission on Judicial Performance defendants [Doc. Nos. 16 , 22 ] are granted
in part and denied in part. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff
Stuart has leave to file an amended complaint no later than Thursday, January 9,
2014. The court denies plaintiffs motion to strike and the Superior Courts motion
for sanctions. [Doc. Nos. 19 , 23 .] Finally, the court deems withdrawn the
remaining motions to dismiss. [Doc. Nos. 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 62 , 67 ,
73 .] Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 12/23/2013.(yeb) (Entered:
12/23/2013)
12/24/2013
89 PRO HAC VICE APPOINTED: Thomas Schafbuch appearing for Defendants

American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, Robert O'Block, Receipt #
53207. (ag) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
01/09/2014
90 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants,

filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix, # 3
Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Appendix, # 6 Appendix, # 7 Appendix, # 8
Appendix, # 9 Appendix, # 10 Appendix, # 11 Appendix, # 12 Appendix, # 13
Appendix)New Summons Requested. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered:
21/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 94 of 107
(189 of 514)
01/09/2014)
01/10/2014
91 First Amended Complaint Summons Issued.

Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and
serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (yeb) (Entered:
01/10/2014)
01/10/2014
92 ORDER SCHEDULING Case Management Conference for 2/26/2014 02:00 PM

in Courtroom 4C before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. No defendant shall answer
or otherwiserespond to the first amended complaint until further order from the
court. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 01/10/2014.(yeb) (Entered:
01/10/2014)
01/14/2014
93 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew L Green on behalf of Administrative Office

of the Courts, Tani G. Cantilsakauye (Green, Matthew)Attorney Matthew L Green
added to party Administrative Office of the Courts(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L
Green added to party Tani G. Cantilsakauye(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 01/14/2014)
01/21/2014
94 PRO HAC VICE APPOINTED: Dean Browning Webb appearing for Plaintiff
California Coalition for Families and Children., Receipt # 58716. (All nonregistered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jao) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
02/21/2014
95 MINUTE ORDER: A case management conference is scheduled in this case for

Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4C, before Judge
Bencivengo. [See Doc. No. 92 .] Plaintiff Colbern C. Stuart and Dean Browning
Webb, counsel for plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children, must
appear in person. Local counsel Eric W. Ching is excused. Local counsel for any
defendant must appear in person. Any additional counsel for a particular
defendant may request to appear telephonically by contacting chambers. (All nonregistered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(yeb) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
02/21/2014
97 MOTION to File Document Under Seal by California Coalition for Families and
Children.. (Ching, Eric) Modified to Correct Event on 2/24/2014 (sjt). (Entered:
02/21/2014)
02/24/2014
98 ORDER granting 97 Motion to Seal Documents. Any opposition to Mr. Chings

motion must be filed on or before March 5, 2014. Mr. Ching shall file his reply, if
any, on or before March 12, 2014. Upon completion of the briefing, the Court will
take the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and no
personal appearances will be required. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn
Major on 2/24/2014. (sjt) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
02/24/2014
99 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Granted by ORDER 98 ) (Ching, Eric)

(sjt). (Entered: 02/24/2014)
02/24/2014
100 (Filed as Sealed Document 101 ) SEALED LODGED Proposed Document re: 99
MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion
to Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Ching, Eric) (Main Document 100 replaced
on 2/24/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of lodgement on 2/24/2014 (sjt).
(Entered: 02/24/2014)
02/26/2014
102 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by California Coalition for Families and
Children.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration)
(Stuart, Colbern)Attorney Colbern C Stuart, III added to party California Coalition
22/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 95 of 107
(190 of 514)
for Families and Children.(pty:pla) (yeb). (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/26/2014
103 DECLARATION re 102 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Parts 1-8 by

Plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children.. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7
Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 02/26/2014)
02/26/2014
104 DECLARATION re 103 Declaration, Parts 9-18 by Plaintiff California Coalition

for Families and Children.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 10, # 2 Exhibit Part 11,
# 3 Exhibit Part 12, # 4 Exhibit Part 13, # 5 Exhibit Part 14, # 6 Exhibit Part 15, #
7 Exhibit Part 16, # 8 Exhibit Part 17, # 9 Exhibit Part 18)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb).
(Entered: 02/26/2014)
02/26/2014
105 DECLARATION re 104 Declaration, Parts 19-24 by Plaintiff California Coalition

for Families and Children.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part 20, # 2 Exhibit Part 21,
# 3 Exhibit Part 22, # 4 Exhibit Part 23, # 5 Exhibit Part 24)(Stuart, Colbern)
(yeb). (Entered: 02/26/2014)
02/26/2014
106 ORDER rejecting 102 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Cathy
Ann Bencivengo on 02/26/2014. (yeb) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
02/26/2014
107 ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on
02/26/2014.(yeb) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
02/26/2014
108 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo: Case
Management Conference held on 2/26/2014. Omnibus briefing schedule is set by
the court. Further written order will follow. Pro se plaintiff requested the court to
address 39 Motion for Sanctions against defendants filed by plaintiff Colbern
Stuart. The motion is denied NUNC PRO TUNC to 12/19/2013. A motion hearing
was held on December 19, 2013 and at that hearing the court dismissed the
complaint in its entirety. As such, all pending motions were deemed withdrawn by
the court (see docket entry 86 ).(Court Reporter/ECR Mauralee Ramirez).
(Plaintiff Attorney Dean Webb and Colbern Stuart (pro se)). (Defendant Attorney
Stephen Lucas, Daniel Agle, Gregory Goonan, Charles Grebing, Matthew Green,
Rachael Mills, Lynn Feldner, Katherine Weadock, Timothy Pestotnik, Ricky
Sanchez, Thomas Schafbuch (telephonic appearance), Kyle Van Dyke, Richard
Wolfe, Mike Nardi, Steve Doyne and Charles Taylor). (no document attached)
(lmh) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
02/28/2014
109 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Domestic Violence Restraining

Orders: First Amend. by California Coalition for Families and Children..
(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit
Part 1 (Inc. Decl.), # 4 Exhibit Part 2, # 5 Exhibit Part 3, # 6 Exhibit Part 4, # 7
Exhibit Part 5, # 8 Exhibit Part 6, # 9 Exhibit Part 7, # 10 Exhibit Part 8, # 11
Exhibit Part 9, # 12 Exhibit Part 10, # 13 Exhibit Part 11, # 14 Exhibit Part 12, #
15 Exhibit Part 13, # 16 Exhibit Part 14, # 17 Exhibit Part 15, # 18 Exhibit Part
16, # 19 Exhibit Part 17, # 20 Exhibit Part 18, # 21 Exhibit Part 19, # 22 Exhibit
Part 20, # 23 Exhibit Part 21, # 24 Exhibit Part 22, # 25 Exhibit Part 23, # 26
Exhibit Part 24)(Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 02/28/2014)
03/04/2014
110 MINUTE ORDER: On February 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 109 .] In light of the current scheduling order
regarding the Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs first amended complaint,
23/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 96 of 107
(191 of 514)
[Doc. No. 105 ] the Court sets the following briefing schedule for plaintiffs
motion for preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 109 ]: Responsive briefs will be filed
no later than June 13, 2014; Plaintiffs may file a reply brief no later than June 20,
2014. The hearing on Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 109 ],
currently set for April 22, 2014, is hereby continued to June 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
in Courtroom 4C.(yeb) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
03/05/2014
111 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Stuart, Colbern) (sjt). (Entered:
03/05/2014)
03/05/2014

Document re: 111 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filed
by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Stuart, Colbern)(sjt).
(Main Document 112 replaced on 3/6/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of
lodgement on 3/6/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/05/2014)
03/06/2014
113 ORDER granting 111 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Mr. Ching shall file
his reply, if any, on or before March 12, 2014. Upon completion of the briefing,
the Court will take the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7.1(d)(1) and no personal appearances will be required. Signed by Magistrate
Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 3/6/2014. (sjt) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
03/11/2014
115 Notice of Document Discrepancies by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo Rejecting

Document: Letter. Non-compliance with local rule(s), OTHER: Ex parte
communication to judge prohibited (Local Rule 83.9). Filer is not a party on the
matter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The document is NOT to be filed, but instead
REJECTED and it is ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all
parties. Any further failure to comply with the Local Rules may lead to penalties
pursuant to Local Rule 83.1., Rejected document was returned to the filer(cge)
(Entered: 03/11/2014)
03/12/2014
116 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Ching, Eric) (sjt). (Entered: 03/12/2014)
03/12/2014

by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (Ching, Eric) (sjt). (Main Document 117
replaced on 3/14/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of lodgement on
3/14/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/12/2014)
03/14/2014
118 ORDER granting 116 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 3/14/2014. (sjt) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
03/14/2014
120 ORDER denying without Prejudice 101 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of

Record. If Mr. Ching wants the Court to consider his motion to withdraw as
attorney of record, Mr. Ching must re-file the motion, serve a copy of the motion
and declaration in support thereof on his client Mr. Stuart (as President CCFC,
PBC) and Mr. Dean Browning Webb on or before March 18, 2014, and file the
required declaration of service on or before March 20, 2014. Once the motion has
been served, CCFC may supplement its opposition on or before March 25, 2014.
Upon completion of the briefing, the Court will take the matter under submission
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and no personal appearances will be
required. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 3/14/2014. (sjt)
(Entered: 03/14/2014)
24/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 97 of 107
(192 of 514)
03/17/2014
121 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Ching, Eric) (sjt). (Entered: 03/17/2014)
03/17/2014
122 (Filed as Sealed Document 124 ) SEALED LODGED Proposed Document re: 121
MOTION to File Documents Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion
to Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Ching, Eric) (sjt). (Main Document 122
replaced on 3/18/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of lodgement on
3/18/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/17/2014)
03/18/2014
03/25/2014
125 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on

2/26/2014, before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Court Reporter/Transcriber:
Mauralee A. Ramirez. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or
purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release
of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER or
the Court Reporter/Transcriber. If redaction is necessary, parties have seven
calendar days from the file date of the Transcript to E-File the Notice of Intent to
Request Redaction. The following deadlines would also apply if requesting
redaction: Redaction Request Statement due to Court Reporter/Transcriber
4/15/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/25/2014. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 6/23/2014. (akr). (Main Document 125 replaced on 3/28/2014
with transcript with corrected date on the cover page. Corrected copy provided by
Court Reporter. Modified docket text to indicate the correct hearing date. NEF
regenerated.) (akr). (Entered: 03/25/2014)
03/25/2014
126 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Stuart, Colbern)(QC mailer sent re:
signature does not match filer) (sjt). (Entered: 03/25/2014)
03/25/2014

by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (Stuart, Colbern) (sjt). Modified to add
filing date of lodgement on 3/26/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 03/25/2014)
03/25/2014
03/27/2014
130 NOTICE of Appearance by Rayna A. Stephan on behalf of San Diego, City of

(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stephan, Rayna)Attorney Rayna A. Stephan
added to party San Diego, City of(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 03/27/2014)
03/28/2014
131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion
[FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) by San Diego County Bar Association.
(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants'
Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FAC, # 2 Declaration of Stephen D. Lucas in Support
of Defendants' Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FAC, # 3 Request for Judicial Notice
in Support of Defendants' Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FAC)(Lucas, Stephen)
(yeb). (Entered: 03/28/2014)
04/02/2014
132 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Colbern C. Stuart on Off Duty Officers, Inc.

04/09/2014
134 NOTICE of Joinder by Brad Batson, Lawrenece J. Simi And Supplement To

Omnibus Motion To Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
25/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 98 of 107
(193 of 514)
Service)(Wolfe, Richard) (yeb). (Entered: 04/09/2014)

04/10/2014
135 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Marilyn Bierer, Bierer and
Associates. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for
Judicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7
Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Proof of Service)(Agle, Daniel)(yeb). (Entered:
04/10/2014)
04/10/2014
136 NOTICE of Appearance by Christine M La Pinta on behalf of Chubb Group of

Insurance Companies (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(La Pinta,
Christine)Attorney Christine M La Pinta added to party Chubb Group of
Insurance Companies(pty:dft)(yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
04/10/2014
137 NOTICE of Joinder by American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, Robert

O'Block (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service Proof of Service)(Schafbuch,
Thomas) (yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
04/10/2014
138 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by Basie and Fritz,
Jeffrey Fritz. (Van Dyke, Kyle)(yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
04/10/2014
139 Supplemental MOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First

Amended Complaint by Administrative Office of the Courts, Lorna Alksne, Tani
G. Cantilsakauye, Christine Goldsmith, Michael Groch, Steven Jahr, Judicial
Council, Jeannie Lowe, William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Kristine Nesthus,
Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J.
Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil. (Green, Matthew)Attorney Matthew L Green added
to party Michael Groch(pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Steven
Jahr (pty:dft), Attorney Matthew L Green added to party Kristine Nesthus(pty:dft)
(yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
04/10/2014
140 NOTICE of Joinder by Administrative Office of the Courts, Lorna Alksne, Tani
G. Cantilsakauye, Christine Goldsmith, Michael Groch, Steven Jahr, Judicial
Council, Jeannie Lowe, William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Kristine Nesthus,
Michael Roddy, Lisa Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J.
Trentacostsa, Joel Wohlfeil re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b)
(Green, Matthew) (yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
04/10/2014
141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to
Dismiss First AMended Complaint Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss
by William D. Gore, San Diego, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points
and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Notice of Joinder Into Omnibus
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, # 3 Proof of Service)
(Sanchez, Ricky) (yeb). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
04/11/2014
142 NOTICE of Joinder by Robert A. Simon, PH.D. re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b),
12(b), 41(b) (Rawers, Brian) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by Dr. Stephen Doyne. (Attachments: #

1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Stephen E. Doyne's Motiont o
Dismiss Complaint or, in the alternative, for more definite statement, # 2 Request
for Judicial Notice In Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint, # 3 Exhibit
26/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 99 of 107
(194 of 514)
Exhibit A to Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B to Request for

Judicial Notice, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C to Request for Judicial Notice, # 6 Stephen
E. Doyne's Joinder to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss FIrst Amended Complaint, # 7
Proof of Service)(Zopatti, Christopher) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
144 NOTICE of Joinder by Larry Corrigan, Dr. Lori Love, Love and Alvarez
Psychology, Inc. re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) and Supplement
to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proof
of Service)(Rogers, James) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
145 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to Omnibus

Motion [Docket 131 - 131-3] and Additional Points and Authorities by Chubb
Group of Insurance Companies. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2
Proof of Service)(La Pinta, Christine) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
146 NOTICE of Joinder by Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, & Kalemenkarian,

Sharon Blanchet re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) and
Supplemental Brief ISO Omnibus Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Request
for Judicial Notice, # 2 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb). (Entered:
04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
147 NOTICE of Joinder by National Family Justice Center Alliance re 131 MOTION
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP
8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) and Supplemental Brief ISO Omnibus Motion to
Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb). (Entered:
04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
148 NOTICE of Joinder by Lori Clark Viviano, Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano re
131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus
Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) and Supplemental Brief ISO Omnibus
Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb).
(Entered: 04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
149 NOTICE of Joinder by Allen Slattery, Inc., Carole Baldwin, Laury Baldwin,
Baldwin and Baldwin, William Hargraeves, Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, Meridith
Levin, Janis Stocks, Stocks & Colburn re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b)
(Attachments: # 1 Notice of Supplemental Motion and Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint, # 2 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 3 Certificate of
Service)(Pestotnik, Timothy)(yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
150 NOTICE of Joinder and Supplemental Brief by Terry Chucas, Susan Griffin re
131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus
Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) with Proof of Service attached hereto
(Och, Gina) (yeb). Modified docket to reflect correct event. (Entered: 04/11/2014)
04/11/2014
151 NOTICE of Joinder by Emily Garson, Jan Goldsmith, San Diego, City of re 131
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion
[FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) Defendants City of San Diego, Jan Goldsmith
and Emily Garson's Joinder and Supplement to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stephan,
Rayna) (yeb). (Entered: 04/11/2014)
27/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014
CM/ECF - casdDktEntry: 11-3

ID: 9287311
Page: 100 of 107

(195 of 514)
04/17/2014
152 NOTICE of Joinder by Off Duty Officers, Inc. re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b),
12(b), 41(b) (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Van Nort, Kelly)(yeb). (Entered:
04/17/2014)
04/18/2014
153 ORDER deeming timely the Notice of Joinder of Defendant Off Duty Officers,
Inc. [Doc. No. 152 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 04/18/2014.
(yeb) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
04/21/2014
154 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Stuart, Colbern) (sjt). (Entered:
04/21/2014)
04/21/2014

by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (With attachments)(Stuart, Colbern) (sjt).
(Main Document 155 replaced on 5/9/2014) (sjt). Modified to add filing date of
lodgement on 5/9/2014 (sjt). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
04/23/2014
156 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruno William Katz on behalf of Off Duty Officers,
Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Katz, Bruno)Attorney Bruno William
Katz added to party Off Duty Officers, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered: 04/23/2014)
05/09/2014
159 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Aileen Van Nort on behalf of Off Duty
Officers, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Van Nort, Kelly)Attorney Kelly
Aileen Van Nort added to party Off Duty Officers, Inc.(pty:dft) (yeb). (Entered:
05/09/2014)
05/13/2014
160 MOTION for Sanctions by Administrative Office of the Courts, Superior Court of
San Diego County. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2
Declaration)(Green, Matthew)(yeb). (Entered: 05/13/2014)
05/16/2014
161 RESPONSE in Opposition re 141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a

Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First AMended Complaint
Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, 135 MOTION to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint, 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139
Supplemental MOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint, 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, 138
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, 145 Supplemental
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to Omnibus Motion [Docket
131 - 131-3] and Additional Points and Authorities filed by Colbern C. Stuart.
05/20/2014
162 REPLY to Response to Motion re 135 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended

Complaint, 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants'
Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139 Supplemental
MOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint,
143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart,
Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 05/20/2014)
05/20/2014
163 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Colbern C. Stuart ISO Opposition to

Omnibus MTN to Dismiss (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb). (Entered: 05/20/2014)
28/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 101 of 107

(196 of 514)
05/20/2014
164 Emergency MOTION to Take Deposition from Stephen D. Lucas Prior to Rule
26(f) Conference/Prior to Hearing on Omnibus Motion to Dismiss by Colbern C.
Stuart. (Stuart, Colbern)(yeb). (Entered: 05/20/2014)
05/21/2014
165 ORDER denying 164 Emergency Motion to Take Early Deposition of Stephen D.
Lucas, counsel for defendant San Diego County Bar Association. Signed by Judge
Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 05/21/2014. (yeb) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
05/22/2014
166 RESPONSE to Motion re 141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Supplemental
to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, 135 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended
Complaint, 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants'
Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139 Supplemental
MOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint,
143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, 138 MOTION to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, 145 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim as to Omnibus Motion [Docket 131 - 131-3] and
Additional Points and Authorities Objections and Motion to Strike Lucas
Declaration and Omnibus Seciont II filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit)(Stuart, Colbern) (knb). (Entered: 05/22/2014)
05/27/2014
167 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) filed
by Larry Corrigan, Dr. Lori Love, Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc.. (Rogers,
James) (yeb). (Entered: 05/27/2014)
05/29/2014
168 REPLY to Response to Motion re 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

with proof of service filed by Dr. Stephen Doyne, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc..
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Zopatti, Christopher)(yeb). (Entered:
05/29/2014)
05/30/2014
by Administrative Office of the Courts, Lorna Alksne, Tani G. Cantilsakauye,
Christine Goldsmith, Michael Groch, Steven Jahr, Judicial Council, Jeannie Lowe,
William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Kristine Nesthus, Michael Roddy, Lisa
Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel
Wohlfeil. (Green, Matthew)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
by Administrative Office of the Courts, Lorna Alksne, Tani G. Cantilsakauye,
Christine Goldsmith, Michael Groch, Steven Jahr, Judicial Council, Jeannie Lowe,
William Mcadam, Edlene Mckenzie, Kristine Nesthus, Michael Roddy, Lisa
Schall, Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacostsa, Joel
Wohlfeil. (Green, Matthew) (yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
by Basie and Fritz, Jeffrey Fritz. (Van Dyke, Kyle)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
29/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 102 of 107

(197 of 514)
by Terry Chucas, Susan Griffin. (Och, Gina) (yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)

05/30/2014
173 REPLY to Response to Motion re 145 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for

Failure to State a Claim as to Omnibus Motion [Docket 131 - 131-3] and
Additional Points and Authorities filed by Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(La Pinta, Christine)(yeb). (Entered:
05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
by Allen Slattery, Inc., Carole Baldwin, Laury Baldwin, Baldwin and Baldwin,
William Hargraeves, Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, Meridith Levin, Janis Stocks,
Stocks & Colburn. (Pestotnik, Timothy)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
Defendants Lori Clark Viviano and Law Offices of Lori Clark Vivianos Reply to
Plaintiffs Opposition to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint filed by Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Grebing, Charles)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
DEFENDANT NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCES REPLY TO
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by National Family Justice Center
Alliance. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Grebing, Charles) (yeb). (Entered:
05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
Defendants Sharon Blanchet and Ashworth, Blanchet, Christensen &
Kalemkiarians Reply to Opposition to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint filed by Sharon Blanchet. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Grebing, Charles)(yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
178 RESPONSE re 163 Request for Judicial Notice filed by Marilyn Bierer, Bierer
and Associates. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Agle, Daniel) (yeb).
(Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
179 REPLY to Response to Motion re 135 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended

Complaint filed by Marilyn Bierer, Bierer and Associates. (Attachments: # 1
Proof of Service)(Agle, Daniel) (yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First AMended Complaint
Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Reply MEmorandum of Points and
Authorities In Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended
Complaint Supplemental to Omnibus Motion filed by William D. Gore, San
Diego, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sanchez, Ricky) (yeb).
(Entered: 05/30/2014)
05/30/2014
30/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 103 of 107

(198 of 514)
Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b) -Defendants' Omnibus Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by
San Diego County Bar Association. (Lucas, Stephen) (yeb). (Entered: 05/30/2014)
06/02/2014
182 TRANSFER ORDER. It is hereby ordered that the following case is transferred
from the calendar of the Honorable Barbara L. Major, to the calendar of the
Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, for all further proceedings. All pending dates
including discovery deadlines, hearings, and conferences before Magistrate Judge
Major, if any, remain unchanged until further order and are now SET before
Magistrate Judge Burkhardt. For cases with conferences or hearing dates set to
occur in June, 2014, counsel shall call Judge Burkhardts chambers within seven
calendar days of this transfer order to confirm that those conferences or hearing
dates are going forward as scheduled. Any dates set before any district judge
remain unchanged. The new case number is 13cv1944 CAB (JLB). Signed by
Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 06/02/14.(jcj) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
06/02/2014
183 RESPONSE to Motion re 131 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -Defendants' Omnibus Motion [FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139
Supplemental MOTION to Supplement Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint, 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint Plaintiffs'
Objections and Motion to Strike New Matter In Replies; Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply Related Thereto filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart, Colbern) (yeb).
(Entered: 06/02/2014)
06/02/2014
184 NOTICE of Joinder by Chubb Group of Insurance Companies re 141 MOTION to

Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First
AMended Complaint Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, 144 Notice of
Joinder, 149 Notice of Joinder,, 150 Notice of Joinder, 181 Reply to Response to
Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(La Pinta, Christine) (yeb). (Entered:
06/02/2014)
06/02/2014
185 NOTICE of Joinder by Robert A. Simon, PH.D. re 167 Reply to Response to

Motion, 142 Notice of Joinder, 181 Reply to Response to Motion, In Replies
Supporting Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Rawers,
Brian) (yeb). (Entered: 06/02/2014)
06/02/2014
186 ORDER: The court finds defendants omnibus motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 131 ]
and related supplemental motions suitable for submission without oral argument
and therefore vacates the hearing set for June 6, 2014. In addition, the court denies
plaintiffs motion to strike or, in the alternative, for leave to file a sur-reply, finding
no cause for the requested relief. [Doc. No. 183 .]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo on 06/02/2014.(yeb) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
06/04/2014
187 NOTICE of Joinder by Allen Slattery, Inc., Carole Baldwin, Laury Baldwin,
Baldwin and Baldwin, William Hargraeves, Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, Meridith
Levin, Janis Stocks, Stocks & Colburn re 141 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First AMended Complaint
Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, 135 MOTION to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint, 144 Notice of Joinder, (Pestotnik, Timothy) (yeb). (Entered:
06/04/2014)
06/05/2014
188 RESPONSE re 184 Notice of Joinder, 187 Notice of Joinder, 185 Notice of
Joinder, OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE LATE JOINDERS &
31/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 104 of 107

(199 of 514)
REPLIES filed by Colbern C. Stuart. (Stuart, Colbern) (jpp). (Entered:

06/05/2014)
06/09/2014
189 MINUTE ORDER: The court vacates the hearing on plaintiffs motion for
preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 109 ] and on the motion for sanctions of
defendant Superior Court of California, County of San Diego [Doc. No. 160 ],
previously set for June 27, 2014. The court will issue a new scheduling order as to
these motions, if necessary, following disposition of the pending motions to
dismiss. (yeb) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
06/12/2014
190 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by California Coalition for Families and
Children. re 169 Reply to Response to Motion,, 152 Notice of Joinder, 144 Notice
of Joinder, 170 Reply to Response to Motion,, 142 Notice of Joinder, 163 Request
for Judicial Notice, 143 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, 147 Notice of
Joinder, 177 Reply to Response to Motion, 176 Reply to Response to Motion, 173
Reply to Response to Motion, 188 Response - Other, 175 Reply to Response to
Motion, 186 Order, Motions Submitted, Terminate Motions and Judge
Association,,, 166 Response to Motion,,, 162 Reply to Response to Motion, 161
Response in Opposition to Motion,,, 150 Notice of Joinder, 183 MOTION to
Strike, 172 Reply to Response to Motion, 185 Notice of Joinder, 140 Notice of
Joinder,, 145 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to
Omnibus Motion [Docket 131 - 131-3] and Additional Points and Authorities, 141
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Notice of Motion and Motion to
Dismiss First AMended Complaint Supplemental to Omnibus Motion to Dismiss,
148 Notice of Joinder, 135 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, 131
MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- Defendants' Omnibus Motion
[FRCP 8(a), 8(e), 9(b), 12(b), 41(b), 139 Supplemental MOTION to Supplement
Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, 174 Reply to Response to
Motion, 146 Notice of Joinder, 184 Notice of Joinder, 167 Reply to Response to
Motion, 149 Notice of Joinder,, 187 Notice of Joinder, 180 Reply to Response to
Motion, 171 Reply to Response to Motion, 138 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint, 179 Reply to Response to Motion, 181 Reply to
Response to Motion, 137 Notice of Joinder, 151 Notice of Joinder, 168 Reply to
Response to Motion re: Omnibus Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
[ECF Dkt. # 131] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d
705 (3d Cir. 2013)(published opininon affriming federal RICO Section 1962(c)
substantive contravention and RICO Section 1962(d) conspiracy contravention
and related federal crimes convictions)), # 2 Exhibit UNited States v. Ciavarella,
3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF Dkt. # 134-first superseding indictment returned
against Mark A. Ciavarella, filed 29 September 2010, # 3 Exhibit United States v.
Ciavarella, 3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF Dkt. # 206, returned jury verdict against
Mark Civarella, filed 11 February 2011, # 4 Exhibit 3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF
Dkt. # 272,entered amended judgment against Mark Ciavarella, filed 12 August
2011, # 5 Exhibit 3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF Dkt. # 106, plea aagreement enterd
by Michael T. Conahan, entering guilty plea for contravention of RICO Section
1962(d) conspiracy, Count 2 of indictment, entered 29 April 2010, # 6 Exhibit
3:09-CR-00272-EMK, ECF Dkt. # 292, entered judgment against Michael T.
Conahan for contravention of RICO Section 1962(d) conspiracy entered 22
September 2011, # 7 Exhibit 3:09-CR-00272-EMK, Statement to the Corut by
Government COunsel iin Connection With Guilty Plea Colloquy;
Acknowledgement by Michael T. Conahan, 22 July 2011)(Webb, Dean). (jah).
32/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 105 of 107

(200 of 514)
(Entered: 06/12/2014)
07/09/2014
191 ORDER dismissing case with prejudice; denying 109 Motion for Preliminary
Injunction; and denying 160 Motion for Sanctions. It is so ordered due to plaintiffs
inabilityor unwillingnessto file a complaint that complies with Rule 8, the court
finds that granting further leave to amend would unduly prejudice defendants.
Accordingly, defendants pending motions to dismiss aregranted, and this action is
dismissed with prejudice. In light of this dismissal, the court denies plaintiffs
motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 109 .] The court does not conclude
that plaintiffs filing was made solely for the purpose of harassing the defendants
or in contempt of the courts order to file a Rule 8 compliant pleading. No
monetary sanction will be awarded, and the motion for sanctions 160 is denied.
Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 07/08/2014. (yeb) (Entered:
07/09/2014)
07/09/2014
192 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment

is in favor of Administrative Office of the Courts, Allen Slattery, Inc., American
College of Forensic Examiners Institute, Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen, &
Kalemenkarian, Baldwin and Baldwin, Basie and Fritz, Bierer and Associates,
CSB-Investigations, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, Commission on
Judicial Performance, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Inc., Hargraeves & Taylor, PC, Judicial
Council, Law Offices of Lori Clark Viviano, Love and Alvarez Psychology, Inc.,
National Family Justice Center Alliance, Off Duty Officers, Inc., San Diego
County Bar Association, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, San Diego, City
of, San Diego, County of, Stocks & Colburn, Superior Court of San Diego
County, Brad Batson, Brian Watkins, Carole Baldwin, Christine Goldsmith, Dr.
Lori Love, Dr. Stephen Doyne, Edlene Mckenzie, Emily Garson, Jan Goldsmith,
Janis Stocks, Jeannie Lowe, Jeffrey Fritz, Joel Wohlfeil, Ken Smith, Kristine
Nesthus, Larry Corrigan, Laury Baldwin, Lawrenece J. Simi, Lisa Schall, Lori
Clark Viviano, Lorna Alksne, Marilou Marcq, Marilyn Bierer, Meridith Levin,
Michael Groch, Michael Roddy, Robert O'Block, Robert A. Simon, PH.D., Robert
J. Trentacostsa, Sharon Blanchet, Steven Jahr, Susan Griffin, Tani G.
Cantilsakauye, Terry Chucas, William Hargraeves, William Mcadam, William D.
Gore against California Coalition for Families and Children., Colbern C. Stuart.
Due to plaintiffs inabilityor unwillingnessto file a complaint that complies with
Rule 8, the court finds that granting further leave to amend would unduly
prejudice defendants. Accordingly, defendants pending motions to dismiss are
granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.(yeb) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
07/14/2014
193 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 192 Clerk's Judgment, 191 Order,
165 Order, 108 Order, 88 Order, 12 Order, by Colbern C. Stuart, California
Coalition for Families and Children. (Filing fee $ 505 receipt number 09747201767.) (Notice of Appeal electronically transmitted to US Court of Appeals.)
(Stuart, Colbern). (Modified on 7/14/2014 to add links to Judgment and Orders.
Modified docket text to add the name of filer California Coalition for Families and
Children.) (akr). (Entered: 07/14/2014)
07/14/2014
194 NOTICE of Representation Statement re 193 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit,
by Colbern C. Stuart, California Coalition for Families and Children. (Stuart,
Colbern). (Modified on 7/14/2014 to edit docket text to reflect title of document
and to add the name of filer California Coalition for Families and Children. Filers
used the Notice of Appeal event to file the Representation Statement. The filers'
33/35
10/21/2014
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014

ID: 9287311
Page: 106 of 107

(201 of 514)
Notice of Appeal was filed at document 193 on 7/14/2014.) (akr). (Entered:

07/14/2014)
07/15/2014
195 USCA Case Number 14-56140 for 193 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit, filed by
Colbern C. Stuart, California Coalition for Families and Children. (akr) (Entered:
07/15/2014)
07/15/2014
196 USCA Time Schedule Order as to 193 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit, filed by
Colbern C. Stuart, California Coalition for Families and Children. (NOTICE TO
PARTIES of deadlines regarding appellate transcripts: Appellant shall file
transcript designation and ordering form with the US District Court (see attached),
provide a copy of the form to the court reporter, and make payment arrangements
with the court reporter on or by 8/13/2014 (see Ninth Circuit Rule 10-3.1); Due
date for filing of transcripts in US District Court is 9/12/2014.) (cc: Court
Reporter). (Attachments: # 1 Transcript Designation and Ordering Form). (akr)
(Entered: 07/15/2014)
09/08/2014
197 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM by Colbern C. Stuart

for proceedings held on 12/19/2013, 2/26/2014 (see addendum) re 193 Notice of
Appeal to 9th Circuit. (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/8/2014: # 1 Exhibit
A, # 2 Exhibit B) (akr). (Stuart, Colbern). (The transcripts filed as Exhibits A and
B have been separated and re-docketed as attachments. The transcript for
2/26/2014 was officially filed at document 125 on 3/25/2014. The court reporter
has been notified re the pending official filing of transcript for date of 12/19/2013.
Modified docket text to correct designated date. Modified document security re
Exhibits.) (akr). (Modified on 9/9/2014 to note that the transcript for 12/19/2013
was officially filed at document 198 on 9/9/2014.) (akr). (Entered: 09/08/2014)
09/09/2014
198 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (Motion Hearing) for date of

12/19/2013 before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, re 193 Notice of Appeal to 9th
Circuit. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Mauralee Ramirez. Transcript may be viewed
at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber
before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be
obtained through PACER or the Court Reporter/Transcriber. If redaction is
necessary, parties have seven calendar days from the file date of the Transcript to
E-File the Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. The following deadlines would
also apply if requesting redaction: Redaction Request Statement due to Court
Reporter/Transcriber 9/30/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/10/2014.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/8/2014. (akr) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
10/21/2014 16:11:41
PACER
Login:
Client Code: 1111
Description: Docket Report
Search
Criteria:
3:13-cv-01944-CABJLB
Billable
Pages:
Cost:
2.80
28
34/35
Case: 14-56140
10/22/2014
ID: 9287311
DktEntry: 11-3
Page: 107 of 107

(202 of 514)
&(57,),&$7(2)6(59,&(
,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDW,HOHFWURQLFDOO\ILOHGWKHIRUHJRLQJZLWKWKH&OHUNRIWKH
&RXUWIRUWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV&RXUWRI$SSHDOVIRUWKH1LQWK&LUFXLWE\XVLQJWKH
DSSHOODWH&0(&)V\VWHPRQ2FWREHUSHU)HGHUDO5XOHVRI$SSHOODWH
3URFHGXUH1LQWK&LUFXLW5XOHJ
,FHUWLI\WKDWDOOSDUWLFLSDQWVLQWKHFDVHDUHUHJLVWHUHG&0(&)XVHUVDQG
WKDWVHUYLFHZLOOEHDFFRPSOLVKHGE\WKHDSSHOODWH&0(&)V\VWHP$Q\RWKHU
FRXQVHORIUHFRUGZLOOEHVHUYHGE\IDFVLPLOHWUDQVPLVVLRQDQGRUILUVWFODVVPDLO
WKLVQGGD\RI2FWREHU

%\VColbern
C. Stuart
III

&ROEHUQ&6WXDUW,,,
3UHVLGHQW&DOLIRUQLD&RDOLWLRQ
)RU)DPLOLHVDQG&KLOGUHQ3%&
LQ3UR6H

11-3 Appellants' Excerpts of The Record, Vol I of II

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

11-3 Appellants' Excerpts of The Record, Vol I of II

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case: 14-56140

Page: 1 of 107 (96 of 514)

Page: 2 of 107 (97 of 514)

Page: 3 of 107 (98 of 514)

 KHUHWR DQGUHODWHGSRUWLRQVRIWKH2UGHU'LVPLVVLQJ&DVH:LWK3UHMXGLFH 25'(5

 6'&DO &DO&RQVW$UW,9 +  25'(5'RF

MXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHLUFRXUWVAshelman v. Pope)G WK

&LU  25'(5'RF1R([KLELWKHUHWRS DQG

United States District Court

Civil Action No. 13CV1944-CAB-BLM

San Diego County Bar Association, a

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR

CASE NO. 13-cv-1944-CAB (JLB)

Stuart and California Coalition filed their amended complaint on January 9,

Lexevia is no longer a party.

Some of plaintiffs assertions are so implausible as to be offensive. For instance,

683. ALKSNE further maintained supervisory responsibility over each

18 (Domestic Dispute Industry Intervention Advocate Criminal Enterprise), DDIJO (Domestic

22 JUSTICE, ASSOCIATION, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, CHILL, CLAIM AND DEMAND,

24 PROTECTION CLASSES, ENTERPRISE ALLEGATIONS, EXCESSIVE FORCE, EXPRESSION,

UNITED STATES, PRIVACY, PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT,

26 PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, STUART ASSAULT, STUART

alleged, depriving Plaintiffs of rights as elsewhere alleged, causing

2 applicable to all defendants, some tailored to subsets or individual defendants. A

U.S. ex rel. Garst v.

10 Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003).6

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case Name: California Coalition for Families and

Ct. Deputy Lori Hernandez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR

CASE NO. 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

U.S. District Court

Date Filed: 08/20/2013

represented by Eric W. Ching

represented by Colbern C Stuart , III

109 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Domestic Violence Restraining

112 (Filed as Sealed Document 114 on 3/6/2014) SEALED LODGED Proposed

115 Notice of Document Discrepancies by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo Rejecting

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES)

BEFORE THE HONORABLE CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

MAURALEE A. RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

COLBERN C. STUART, III

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

DEAN BROWNING WEBB

FOR THE DEFENDANT

FOR THE DEFENDANT

FOR THE DEFENDANT

FOR THE DEFENDANT

FOR THE DEFENDANT

KHUHWRDQGUHODWHGSRUWLRQVRIWKH2UGHU'LVPLVVLQJ&DVH:LWK3UHMXGLFH25'(5

6'&DO&DO&RQVW$UW,9+25'(5'RF

MXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHLUFRXUWVAshelman v. Pope)GWK

&LU25'(5'RF1R([KLELWKHUHWRSDQG