|
|
COPPLE v. ASTRELLA & RICE, P.C.
442 F.Supp.2d 829 (2006)
Robert W. COPPLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
ASTRELLA & RICE, P.C., et al., Defendants.
No. C 05-3961 JSW.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
August 9, 2006.
Ernest M. Thayer, Joseph Wood, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Ethan P. Schulman, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISSWHITE, District Judge. INTRODUCTIONThis matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") filed by Astrella & Rice, P.C., Baker, Burton & Lundy, P.C., Engstrom, Lipscomp & Lack, Girardi & Keese, J. Tynan Kelly, Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, M. Brian McMahon, O'Donnell & Schaeffer, LLP, Michael J. Ponce, Francis 0. Scarpulla, and Douglas A. Stacey (collectively "Attorney Defendants") (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Also before the Court are requests for judicial notice filed by both parties. Having reviewed the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, the record in this case, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' requests for judicial notice, and GRANTS Plaintiff's request for judicial notice. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDPlaintiff Robert W. Copple ("Copple") brings this putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the "Attorney Defendants, entered into and implemented a conspiracy with a public official to commit and to preserve and cover up, an extrinsic fraud that would allow, and in fact did allow, Attorney Defendants to obtain for their own account $23 million or more in excess of any amount to which Attorney Defendants might properly have been entitled under applicable law," as part of a class action settlement in In re Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I, II, III & IV, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4221, 4224, 4226 & 4228 (hereinafter "the Natural Gas proceedings"). (FAC, ¶¶ 20, 22(a).)1
1. The public official is alleged to be the Honorable J. Richard Haden ("Judge Haden"), the presiding judge in the Natural Gas proceedings. Judge Haden is not named as a defendant in this action. 2. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,460 U.S. 462, 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). 3. The parties dispute whether the pleading standards of Rule 9(b) apply to the claim of extrinsic fraud. The Court does not need to resolve that dispute, because under the more liberal pleading standards of Rule 8(a), Copple has sufficiently alleged the existence of a conspiracy. 4. This opinion is bolstered by Mr. Thayer's statement that, "I . . . extensively researched the issue of what was required to state a valid claim for relief, under the circumstances of apparent improper collusion here presented, pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1983. That research led me to the following legal opinions . . . and in particular Kimes v. Stone—a case factually almost identical to the present one." (Declaration of Ernest Thayer in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Submission Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 54-6(b), 112(c)(1).)
|
|