Grundstein v. Washington State Bar Association et al, No. 2:2012cv00569 - Document 73 (W.D. Wash. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER denying 43 Plaintiff's Corrected 2d Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 49 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Grundstein v. Washington State Bar Association et al Doc. 73 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 ROBERT GRUNDSTEIN, Case No. C12-569RSL Plaintiff, 8 9 10 vs. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Corrected 2d Amended Motion for TRO With Notice or Preliminary Injunction With Expedited Hearing” (Dkt. # 43) and the Washington Supreme Court Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)” (Dkt. # 49).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion and GRANTS Defendants’ motion. The Court DISMISSES each of Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. I. BACKGROUND 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court. Neither is his claim. Mr. Grundstein was admitted to practice law in Washington on April 25, 1991. It does not appear that he ever represented a paying client in Washington. Dkt. # 20-1 at 28. Nevertheless, on November 12, 2010, the Washington State Bar Association (“WSBA”) filed formal 1 This motion was joined by each of the other Defendants. Dkt. # 52. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 disciplinary proceedings against him, accusing him of, among other things, a long 2 history of frivolous and harassing filings in this state and others. Compare Amended 3 Complaint (Dkt. # 8) at 8, with Dkt. # 20-1 (Bar Findings). Ever since, Plaintiff has 4 waged a full-out assault against those proceedings in both state and federal court. 5 6 7 On February 28, 2011, Plaintiff requested that the Washington Supreme Court enjoin his disciplinary proceedings. His request was denied. On April 25, 2011, he filed suit in this Court against the WSBA official who filed 8 the disciplinary complaint against him. See, e.g., Amended Complaint, Grundstein v. 9 Eide, No. C11-692RSL (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2011), ECF No. 18 (Lasnik, J.). He asked 10 this Court to enjoin the disciplinary proceedings against him and to declare many of 11 Washington’s Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct unconstitutional and 12 unenforceable. Id. Citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40–41 (1971), this Court 13 dismissed his claims. Order of Dismissal, Grundstein v. Eide, No. C11-692RSL (W.D. 14 Wash. Aug. 17, 2011), ECF No. 23 (Lasnik, J.). 15 Two days later, Plaintiff filed a similar suit in King County Superior Court. That 16 suit likewise ended in dismissal, as well as Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff. See King 17 County Superior Court Case No. 11-2-28470-1 SEA. While that action was pending the 18 Washington Supreme Court denied a second request by Plaintiff to enjoin the 19 proceedings against him. See Washington Supreme Court Case No. 865051. 20 In any case, on September 26, 2011, Plaintiff’s disciplinary proceeding took place 21 over Plaintiff’s many objection with him in attendance. On October 14, 2012, the 22 hearing officer issued a 28-page written Recommendation that detailed the allegations 23 against Plaintiff, her findings, and her ultimate recommendation that Plaintiff be 24 disbarred. Dkt. # 20-1 at 1–28. Plaintiff appealed those findings and recommendations 25 to the WSBA Disciplinary Board. See id. at 36–40. He also sought to introduce “new” 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 2 1 evidence. Id. On March 8, 2012, after “review[ing] the materials submitted by the 2 parties, hear[ing] oral argument, and consider[ing] the applicable case law and rules,” the 3 Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendation. Id. at 42. 4 On April 3, 2012, Plaintiff appealed the Board’s decision to the Washington 5 Supreme Court. See id. at 44. He filed the instant action against each Washington 6 Supreme Court justice, the WSBA, and various individuals and entities associated with 7 the WSBA the next day, see Dkt. # 8. after being informed that his appeal to the 8 Washington Supreme Court was untimely filed, Dkt. # 20-1 at 44. He again asks this 9 Court to enjoin the proceedings against him and award him declaratory relief. Dkt. # 8 at 10 39–40. He also adds claims against the WSBA and the affiliated individuals and entities 11 for monetary damages. Id. at 39. He specifically disclaims any damages claim against 12 the Supreme Court Defendants. Dkt. # 57 at 4. 13 After filing suit in this Court, Plaintiff moved the Washington Supreme Court for 14 an enlargement of time to file his appeal. Dkt. # 20-1 at 45–49. On June 18, 2012, the 15 Washington Supreme Court issued an order disbarring Plaintiff. Dkt. # 50 at 4. That 16 order took effect on June 25, 2012. Id. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Once again, Plaintiff asks this Court to award him injunctive and declaratory 19 relief.2 Dkt. # 43. And, once again, each Defendant moves the Court to dismiss those 20 requests under a variety of theories. Dkt. # 49. Of them, the Court need only consider 21 one: the Younger abstention doctrine. 22 23 24 2 25 The Court notes that the present motions do not concern Plaintiff’s request for damages, which are particular to the WSBA Defendants. 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 3 1 The elements of the doctrine are straightforward: “If a state-initiated proceeding 2 is ongoing, and if it implicates important state interests . . . , and if the federal litigant is 3 not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in that proceeding, then a federal 4 court action that would enjoin the proceeding, or have the practical effect of doing so, 5 would interfere in a way that Younger disapproves.” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 6 965, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (overruling Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 7 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), to the extent it required “‘direct interference’ as a 8 condition, or threshold element, of Younger abstention”). Accordingly, when a federal 9 claim for injunctive or declaratory relief is brought and is not “‘wholly unrelated’ to the 10 issues in the pending state proceeding,” id. at 918 n.14, “dismissal (and only dismissal) is 11 appropriate” absent a demonstrated showing of extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 981.3 12 With this framework in mind, the Court turns to the facts of this case. In regard to 13 the first abstention element, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contention that the 14 Washington Supreme Court’s disbarment order negates Younger’s application. To the 15 contrary, “[t]he critical date for purposes of deciding whether abstention principles apply 16 is the date the federal action is filed.” Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 969 n.4. “In other words, 17 Younger abstention requires that the federal courts abstain when state court proceedings 18 were ongoing at the time the federal action was filed,” regardless of whether “the state 19 court proceedings had ended prior to the district court’s decision to abstain.” Beltran v. 20 State of California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, because the very state court 21 proceedings Plaintiff sought to enjoin or otherwise interfere with, see Samuels v. 22 Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 73 (1971), “were ongoing at the time [Plaintiff’s] federal action 23 24 3 25 Notably, claims for money damages are subject only to stay under Younger, not dismissal. Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 982. 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 4 1 was filed,” the first Younger element is met. See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. 2 Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432–33 (1982) (concluding that “state bar 3 disciplinary hearings within the constitutionally prescribed jurisdiction of the State 4 Supreme Court constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding”). 5 The Court likewise finds that the bar proceedings in this case “implicate[] 6 important state interests.” Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978. As found by the Supreme Court, 7 states have “an extremely important interest in maintaining and assuring the professional 8 conduct of the attorneys it licenses.” Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432–33. 9 Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff had ample opportunity to present his federal 10 constitutional claims in the preceding below. Again as in Middlesex, at a minimum, 11 Plaintiff had the opportunity to present his constitutional claims to the Washington 12 Supreme Court. Cf. id. at 436. Nothing more is required. See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 13 983. Plaintiff’s “failure to avail himself of the opportunity does not mean that the state 14 procedures are inadequate.” Id.; accord Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) 15 (“Appellees need be accorded only an opportunity to fairly pursue their constitutional 16 claims in the ongoing state proceedings, . . . and their failure to avail themselves of such 17 opportunities does not mean that the state procedures were inadequate.”). 18 Having concluded that each of the Younger abstention elements are met, the 19 Court must next consider whether it should decline to abstain because Plaintiff has 20 demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances are present. Generously construed, 21 Plaintiff argues three tenable examples of extraordinary circumstances: first, that his 22 claims involve First Amendment concerns that are “particularly unsuitable for 23 Abstention,” Dkt. # 57 at 12; second, that the hearing officer was biased against him due 24 to her employer’s affiliation with the WSBA, Dkt. # 8 at 9; and, third, that his initial 25 hearing was conducted in bad faith, Dkt. # 8 at 9–11. None suffice. 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 5 1 First, Younger itself held, “We do not think . . . that a federal court can properly 2 enjoin enforcement of a statute solely on the basis of a showing that the statute ‘on its 3 face’ abridges First Amendment rights.”4 Younger, 401 U.S. at 53–54. To the contrary, 4 First Amendment concerns amount to extraordinary circumstances only when “the 5 challenged provision is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional 6 prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner and 7 against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.” Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v. 8 Cnty. of Solano, 657 F.3d 876, 884 n.9 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks 9 omitted) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 53–54 (citation omitted)). And in this case, 10 Plaintiff alleges nothing more than that one of the Washington’s Rules of Professional 11 Conduct he was found to have violated is unconstitutionally vague: “RPC 3.1 12 (“frivolous conduct”) is so vague, it is not susceptible to severance or a saving/limiting 13 construction in state court.” Dkt. # 57 at 12. That is not enough. See, e.g., Middlesex, 14 457 U.S. at 432–33 (concluding that Younger abstention applied even though the 15 attorney-plaintiffs “charged that the disciplinary rules were facially vague and 16 overbroad” under the First Amendment). 17 Second, “one who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of honesty and 18 integrity in those serving as adjudicators,” Hirsh v. Justices of Sup. Ct. of State of Cal., 19 67 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), and 20 Plaintiff’s bare-bones allegation that his hearing officer was biased against him because 21 she was employed by an individual on the WSBA’s “Judicial Selection Committee,” 22 Dkt. # 8 at 9, falls woefully short of that standard. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 23 47 (1975). Frankly, it does not even amount to a plausible allegation. See Ashcroft v. 24 4 25 Not one of the case relied upon by Plaintiff to support his position regarding his First Amendment claim concerns abstention in the Younger context. 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 6 1 Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 2 544, 570 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff does not assert any bias on the part of the 3 Washington Supreme Court or even the Disciplinary Board that reviewed and adopted 4 the hearing officer’s findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the Court could not 5 find that “the state forum [wa]s ‘incompetent by reason of bias.” Potrero, 657 F.3d at 6 884 n.9 (emphasis added); see Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 983. 7 And, third, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented no plausible evidence that 8 the “state proceeding [were] motivated by a desire to harass or [were] conducted in bad 9 faith.” Potrero, 657 F.3d at 884 n.9. Plaintiff’s allegation that the WSBA has primarily 10 disciplined independent solo practitioners does not state even a plausible claim of bad 11 faith. It is just as easily explained by the fact that solo practitioners have less inherent 12 oversight or that those individual attorneys were actually acting inappropriately. See 13 Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (If “a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a 14 defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 15 entitlement to relief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, each 16 and every allegation of bad faith made by Plaintiff, Dkt. # 8 at 9–11, is based solely on 17 actions allegedly taken by the hearing officer.5 He raises no complaint against the 18 Disciplinary Board or the Washington Supreme Court and thus cannot demonstrate that 19 the entirety of the proceedings were either “motivated by a desire to harass or [were] 20 conducted in bad faith.” Potrero, 657 F.3d at 884 n.9. 21 22 23 24 25 26 5 The Court thinks it worthwhile to note that many of Plaintiff’s claims are in fact refuted by the documentary evidence filed in this case. For example, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Hearing Officer found Grundstein changed a felony charge to a misdemeanor in order to purchase a gun sometime in the past (2002, 2003?).” Dkt. # 8 at 11. However, the officer’s findings plainly state: “Respondent admitted that he altered [the court’s order] to reflect that he was only charged with a fourth degree misdemeanor as opposed to a first degree misdemeanor.” Dkt. # 20-1 at 5 (emphasis added). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 7 1 In sum then, the Court finds that the Younger abstention doctrine applies to 2 Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and that “no bad faith, harassment, 3 or other exceptional circumstances” exist to preclude abstention. See Middlesex, 457 4 U.S. at 437. Accordingly, as to those claims, “dismissal (and only dismissal) is 5 appropriate.” Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 981. 6 III. CONCLUSION 7 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a 8 preliminary injunction (Dkt. # 43) and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 9 49) Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Younger abstention 10 doctrine with prejudice. See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 981 (“When an injunction is sought 11 and Younger applies, it makes sense to abstain, that is, to refrain from exercising 12 jurisdiction, permanently by dismissing the federal action because the federal court is 13 only being asked to stop the state proceeding.” (emphasis in original)); Rosenthal v. 14 Carr, 614 F.2d 1219, 1220 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming the dismissal with prejudice under 15 Younger of an attorney’s suit against the California State Bar “for preliminary and 16 permanent injunctions and for declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”). Practically 17 speaking, this results in the dismissal of all claims against the Supreme Court Defendants 18 in this action. Only Plaintiff’s damage claims against the WSBA and the individuals and 19 entities affiliated with it remain. Cf. Dkt. # 53. 20 21 DATED this 13th day of August, 2012. 22 23 A Robert S. Lasnik 24 United States District Judge 25 26 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
