Peli Popovich Hunt v. Horwitz Cron and Armstrong LLP
2:12-cv-07866
C.D. Cal.Apr 16, 2013Background
- Present: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder; plaintiff Hunt, pro se, filed a complaint against multiple defendants including Judge Robles in his official capacity and others.
- On March 8, 2013, the United States substituted for Judge Robles as to the state tort claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1).
- Plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims (conspiracy and professional negligence) arising from Judge Robles’ bankruptcy proceedings.
- The United States moved to dismiss the two state-law claims asserted against it; plaintiff, now counseled, opposed, and the United States replied.
- The court scheduled no oral argument and took the matter under submission; it granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
- Plaintiff may amend the complaint as to the United States’ claims on or before May 1, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial immunity bars suit on alleged judicial acts | Hunt asserts immunity does not bar claims for improper acts. | United States contends absolute judicial immunity applies to Judge Robles’ judicial acts. | Judicial immunity bars the claims. |
| Whether exceptions to judicial immunity apply (nonjudicial acts or complete lack of jurisdiction) | Hunt claims nonjudicial acts or lack of jurisdiction negate immunity. | Robles’ acts were judicial and within jurisdiction; exceptions do not apply. | Neither exception applies; immunity remains. |
| Whether the United States is entitled to dismissal of the state-law claims | Hunt seeks to proceed against the United States for state-law torts. | Because of immunity, dismissal is proper and appropriate without prejudice. | The United States’ motion to dismiss is granted. |
| Whether amendment should be allowed) | Amendment could cure deficiencies against the United States. | Dismissal without prejudice allows amendment if timely; otherwise not guaranteed. | Plaintiff may amend on or before May 1, 2013. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988) (absolute judicial immunity for judges)
- Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1993) (immunity regardless of alleged harm from acts)
- In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (challenge to prior rulings via appeal, not suit)
- Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987) (complete absence of jurisdiction standard)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (test for determining judicial vs nonjudicial acts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requirement to plead grounds of entitlement to relief)
- Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards in the 9th Cir.)
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (contextual pleadings and inferences)
- United States v. City of Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981) (exceptional circumstances for 12(b)(6) dismissal)