Anthony Patel v. Patrick Decarolis
701 F. App'x 590
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony A. Patel, a former attorney, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law based on conduct in his state marital dissolution proceedings.
- Defendants included a state judge (Judge Pacheco), two law firms (Buter, Buzard, Fishbein & Royce, LLP and Trope & DeCarolis LLP), and an individual attorney (Royce/DeCarolis).
- The district court dismissed Patel’s complaint: it dismissed damages claims against the judge, found Noerr-Pennington immunity for one law firm, and compelled arbitration as to Trope & DeCarolis.
- Patel appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court in a published (non-precedential) disposition.
- The court declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal and denied Patel’s motion to amend as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity for Judge Pacheco | Judge acted improperly in marital dissolution; relief is warranted | Judge's acts were judicial and thus immune | Dismissal affirmed: absolute judicial immunity bars damages; injunctive/declaratory claims not plausibly pleaded |
| Noerr-Pennington immunity for Buter, Buzard, Fishbein & Royce and Royce | Litigation conduct was wrongful and not immune | Petitioning activity protected by Noerr-Pennington; Patel failed to plead sham litigation | Affirmed: Noerr-Pennington applies; Patel did not allege objective baselessness |
| Arbitration as to Trope & DeCarolis | Arbitration was improper or action should be stayed pending arbitration; discovery disputes | Parties had a valid arbitration agreement covering dispute; FAA requires referral | Affirmed: compelling arbitration appropriate; stay and discovery contentions meritless |
| Consideration of new arguments / amendment | New facts/arguments should be heard; motion to amend should be allowed | Appellate court need not consider new arguments; amendment was moot after dismissal | Court refused to consider new arguments on appeal; motion to amend denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir.) (state judges entitled to absolute judicial immunity)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir.) (pleading standard for pro se plaintiffs)
- Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.) (Noerr-Pennington petitioning immunity)
- Kottle v. Nw. Kidney Ctrs., 146 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.) (sham litigation exception to Noerr-Pennington)
- Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat’l Ass’n, 718 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.) (FAA compels arbitration when valid agreement covers dispute)
- Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., 298 F.3d 778 (9th Cir.) (unconscionability principles under California law)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (appellate court need not consider arguments raised first on appeal)