Sternberg v. Warneck
2:23-cv-01466
| D. Nev. | Nov 14, 2024Background
- Michael Sternberg filed suit against 75 individuals and entities, including his children’s mother (Shelley Warneck), her attorney (Tristan Aeschleman), and Aeschleman’s law firm (Adames & Ash, LLP).
- The claims arise out of an interstate child custody dispute, with Sternberg alleging a conspiracy to abduct his children from Nevada to California, involvement in his arrest, and the seizure of his children.
- The Aeschleman Defendants, based in California, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; they argued that their actions were limited to representing Warneck in California litigation.
- The Court largely granted the motion to dismiss but allowed Sternberg leave to amend some claims if he can allege facts supporting Nevada jurisdiction and viable claims.
- The Court found most claims either jurisdictionally or legally deficient, but Sternberg may pursue certain claims if properly pleaded and within limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Aeschleman Defs | Defendants conspired to remove children, acted in NV | Conduct limited to CA, no NV contacts | No personal jurisdiction, but leave to amend if facts exist |
| Rooker-Feldman doctrine | Not a state court loser; claims are independent/fraud-based | Claims are de facto state court appeals, should be barred | Barred except claims of independently wrongful conduct |
| State action for §1983 | Not necessary or adequately alleged | Defendants are private actors; no state actor status | §1983 claims fail; no plausible joint action/conspiracy alleged |
| Statute of limitations | Recent events (arrest & seizure in 9/2021) are timely | Most wrongful acts alleged before 9/2021, thus time-barred | Claims before 9/20/21 dismissed as untimely; rest can proceed |
| Noerr-Pennington doctrine | Some actions not litigation/petitioning related | All acts were petitioning activity, immune | Bar applies to court-related conduct unless "sham exception" is pled |
| NRS § 125C.0075/private right | Statute allows attorney’s fees claim | Only family court has jurisdiction over such claims | Only family court can hear; dismissed in district court |
| Tortious interference with parental rights | Should be recognized; seeks NV Supreme Court input | Not recognized under Nevada law | Leave to amend; possible certification to NV Supreme Court |
| Abuse of process | Defendants’ alleged conspiracy went beyond litigation | No improper use of process alleged | Insufficient facts pled; leave to amend if more facts exist |
| Civil conspiracy | Plausible conspiracy to interfere with parental rights | No underlying wrong or sufficient conspiracy facts pled | Claim conclusory; leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (sets out the test for personal jurisdiction and pleading requirements)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (general jurisdiction standard)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) ("at home" test for general jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction over entities to "home" state)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine scope and application)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability is not enough for jurisdiction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006) (Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunity for petitioning activity)
- Land Baron Inv. v. Bonnie Springs Fam. LP, 356 P.3d 511 (Nev. 2015) (abuse of process elements under NV law)
- Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 971 P.2d 1251 (Nev. 1998) (elements of civil conspiracy under NV law)