Norkin v. Fla. Bar
311 F. Supp. 3d 1299
S.D. Fla.2018Background
- Plaintiff, a former attorney, was suspended in 2013 and disbarred in 2015 after continuing to represent a client during suspension; he filed an Amended Complaint (AC) alleging federal and state claims against Florida Supreme Court justices and two circuit judges ("Judicial Defendants"), The Florida Bar, Bar counsel Randi Lazarus, and Miami New Times (MNT).
- AC asserted eleven counts including abuse of process, fraud, deprivation of property/liberty, obstruction of justice, tortious interference, denial of access to courts, defamation/false light against MNT, ADA violations against judges, and declaratory/injunctive relief.
- MNT published two online articles about Plaintiff’s disciplinary history (Dec. 10, 2013 and Oct. 16, 2015); Plaintiff sued for defamation/false light.
- Judicial Defendants were sued for actions taken in the disciplinary proceedings; Bar and Lazarus were sued for prosecutorial/administrative conduct in the same proceedings.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds (statute of limitations, immunity, Rooker–Feldman, Eleventh Amendment, failure to state a claim); the Court granted all motions and dismissed the AC with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of defamation claim against MNT | Claim not ripe until Plaintiff notified MNT; online reposting restarts limitations; injunctive relief saves claim | Publication date starts statute of limitations; single-publication rule applies to online content; injunctive relief does not toll limitations | Dismissed as time-barred; claim accrues at first publication; single-publication rule applies to internet articles |
| Immunity of Judicial Defendants | Judicial acts were wrongful, unconstitutional, or outside authority | Judges entitled to absolute judicial immunity for acts in judicial capacity | Claims against judges barred by absolute judicial immunity; dismissal granted |
| Jurisdiction over state-court disciplinary judgment (Rooker–Feldman) | Federal court can adjudicate constitutional and other federal claims arising from disciplinary process | Federal court lacks authority to review final state court judgments or claims inextricably intertwined; state process provided opportunity to raise federal claims | Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of the disciplinary judgment and related claims; dismissal granted |
| Claims vs. Florida Bar and Lazarus (supplemental/state-law claims) | Federal court may exercise jurisdiction and consider statutory and tort claims | Rooker–Feldman and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction bar federal review; decline of supplemental jurisdiction | All claims against Bar and Lazarus dismissed under Rooker–Feldman; court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity protects judicial acts even if erroneous)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judicial immunity applies despite bad faith or malice)
- Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (judicial immunity applies even where misconduct is alleged)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (federal courts may not review final state court judgments)
- Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir.) (judges entitled to absolute immunity for judicial acts)
- Matter of Calvo, 88 F.3d 962 (11th Cir.) (attorney disciplinary actions are judicial in nature)
- Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 734 F.3d 610 (7th Cir.) (single-publication rule applies to online material)