James Schottel, Jr. v. Patrick Young
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15848
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Schottel, an Missouri attorney, agreed pro hac vice to represent Illinois family in a wrongful-death action in Illinois state court and required a $2,000 retainer; he received $1,600 upfront.
- William Berry assisted as local counsel; Schottel’s fee arrangement contemplated recovery of a reasonable fee if he withdrew or was discharged.
- Judge Patrick Young held that Schottel must refund the $1,600 retainer to the family as a condition of granting withdrawal from representation.
- Schottel sought reconsideration; the court gave ten days to pay the money to permit withdrawal; he later paid the $1,600.
- In September 2010, Schottel filed a §1983 action in federal court alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the district court dismissed under Rooker-Feldman, immunity, and venue considerations.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Judge Young’s action was a judicial act protected by absolute judicial immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman deprives jurisdiction | Schottel contends Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction. | Young argues the district court lacked jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman. | Rooker-Feldman not reached; court found immunity dispositive. |
| Whether Judge Young is entitled to judicial immunity | Schottel argues immunity does not bar his §1983 claim. | Young contends acts were judicial and within jurisdiction, thus immune. | Judge Young is entitled to judicial immunity; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity scope and exceptions)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (broad jurisdictional immunity for judicial acts)
- Liles v. Reagan, 804 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1986) (controlling acts of a judge are judicial functions)
- Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (ruling on motions is a normal judicial function)
- Guttman v. Silverberg, 167 F. App’x 1 (2005) (permission to withdraw and motions are judicial acts)
- In re Luis R., 941 N.E.2d 136 (Ill. 2010) (Illinois circuit court has jurisdiction over justiciable matters)
- Bellville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002) (definition of justiciable matter for Illinois courts)