RONALD GOTTSCHALK V., No. 12-55304 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: RONALD GOTTSCHALK, ______________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-55304 D.C. No. 2:11-mc-00284-ABC RONALD GOTTSCHALK, attorney disciplinary matter, MEMORANDUM* Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Ronald Gottschalk, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing reciprocal discipline on him after his disbarment from the California State Bar. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reciprocal * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discipline against Gottschalk because he failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was deprived of due process, that there was insufficient proof of the misconduct that led to his disbarment, or that grave injustice would result from the imposition of reciprocal discipline. See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the limited circumstances under which an attorney subject to discipline by another court can avoid a federal court’s imposition of reciprocal discipline, and setting forth attorney’s burden of proof). We reject as unsupported by the record Gottschalk’s contention that the district court improperly destroyed documents. Gottschalk’s request for counsel, raised in his opening brief, is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 12-55304

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.