Daniel Delacruz, Sr. v. State Bar of California
20-16433
| 9th Cir. | Mar 15, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Daniel Delacruz sued the State Bar of California and others under RICO, alleging defendants circulated a police report (including a Social Security number) and engaged in misconduct during litigation.
- The district court dismissed Delacruz’s complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, imposed Rule 11 monetary sanctions on Delacruz, and denied his motions for sanctions and for reconsideration.
- Delacruz argued the Eleventh Amendment immunity was abrogated by the ADA and that Ex parte Young allowed relief; he also contended his claims were timely and that Rule 11’s safe-harbor applied.
- The district court found Claim One time-barred, Claim Two barred by Noerr-Pennington (not a RICO predicate), and concluded amendment would be futile; it sanctioned Delacruz and denied his post-judgment motions.
- Delacruz appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed dismissals and jurisdictional rulings de novo and affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Bar immunity under Eleventh Amendment | State Bar not immune; plaintiff sought relief | State Bar is an arm of the state and immune from suit | Affirmed: Eleventh Amendment bars suit against State Bar |
| ADA abrogation of immunity | ADA abrogates state immunity to allow suit | Complaint pleads only RICO claims, not ADA | Affirmed: abrogation inapplicable to pleaded RICO claims |
| Ex parte Young exception | Ex parte Young permits prospective relief against state officials | State Bar is a state agency; Ex parte Young not available | Affirmed: Ex parte Young does not apply to State Bar |
| Statute of limitations (Claim One) | Claim timely | Claim accrued >4 years before filing | Affirmed: Claim One time-barred |
| Noerr-Pennington (Claim Two) | Defendants’ discovery and report circulation actionable | Communications were petitioning activity protected by Noerr-Pennington | Affirmed: Claim Two barred by Noerr-Pennington |
| Sham litigation exception to Noerr-Pennington | Litigation was a sham and not protected | No adequate basis to treat litigation as sham | Affirmed: sham exception does not apply |
| Leave to amend | Should be allowed to cure defects | Amendment would be futile | Affirmed: dismissal without leave appropriate as futile |
| Rule 11 sanctions & safe-harbor | Safe-harbor under Rule 11(c)(2) bars sanctions | Plaintiff forfeited safe-harbor by not raising it timely; history of meritless filings | Affirmed: sanctions appropriate; safe-harbor forfeited |
| Motions for sanctions by plaintiff and reconsideration | Plaintiff sought sanctions and reconsideration | No legal basis shown; no abuse of discretion by court | Affirmed: motions denied; Rule 59(e) denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Pirani v. Slack Techs., Inc., 13 F.4th 940 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for dismissal/jurisdiction)
- Hirsch v. Justices of Supreme Court of State of Cal., 67 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment immunity of state entities)
- Jamul Action Committee v. Simermeyer, 974 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2020) (limits on Ex parte Young for state agencies)
- Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (statute of limitations accrual rules)
- Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP, 590 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2009) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine and petitioning immunity)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend; futility standard)
- Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., 891 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2018) (Rule 11 sanctions standard)
- OneCast Media, Inc. v. Doe, 439 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2006) (forfeiture of Rule 11 safe-harbor arguments)
- Ballou v. McElvain, 14 F.4th 1042 (9th Cir. 2021) (Equal Protection discriminatory purpose inquiry)
- Arconic, Inc. v. APC Investment Co., 969 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2020) (principles of judicial/equitable estoppel)
- Connell v. Lima Corporate, 988 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard for Rule 59(e) reconsideration)
- Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for sanctions denial)