Simon v. Superior Court of California
3:23-cv-00889
S.D. Cal.Jan 18, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Phillip W. Simon challenged various rulings from an ongoing marital dissolution case in the California Superior Court, San Diego County, most notably a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued against him in October 2021.
- Simon alleged the DVRO and related decisions were based on false testimony and procedural errors, and that both the Superior Court and multiple attorneys and witnesses committed fraud on the court.
- Simon sought to have the federal court vacate the DVRO, order a change of venue for the state case, and address unresolved property issues regarding community property status and his VA benefits.
- The Superior Court moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Eleventh Amendment immunity, failure to state a claim, and other grounds, asserting federal review was barred.
- The court addressed the motion to dismiss primarily on jurisdictional grounds and did not allow oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal court jurisdiction (Rooker-Feldman) | Seeking relief from allegedly fraudulent state court rulings and orders | Claims are a de facto appeal of state court judgments, federal review barred | Rooker-Feldman bars most claims as forbidden appeal |
| Fraud on the court (Rule 60) | Superior Court, witnesses, and attorneys engaged in fraud undermining DVRO | Federal Rule 60 only applies to federal, not state, court orders | Rule 60 cannot be used for state judgments |
| Sufficiency of pleadings under Rules 8/9 | Claims sufficiently pled with factual detail and under fraud standard | Complaint is conclusory, disorganized, lacks specifics and causes of action | Pleadings are insufficient under Rules 8 & 9 |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity | Immunity doesn't apply as claim is for equitable relief, not damages | Superior Court is an arm of the state and immune from suit | Claims barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (establishes federal courts can't review state court judgments under Rooker-Feldman)
- Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2003) (defining 'inextricably intertwined' standard for Rooker-Feldman)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for 12(b)(6))
- Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987) (California superior courts as arms of the state for immunity)