Sternberg v. Warneck
2:23-cv-01466
D. Nev.Nov 14, 2024Background
- Michael Sternberg sued 75 defendants connected to a custody dispute, specifically including Tristan Aeschleman and his California law firm for their role as opposing counsel.
- Sternberg alleged the Aeschleman Defendants conspired to abduct his children from Nevada, organized Sternberg’s arrest, and helped relocate the children to California.
- The Aeschleman Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and based on doctrines such as Rooker-Feldman and Noerr-Pennington.
- The alleged wrongful conduct took place mainly in California and related to California state-court proceedings, not Nevada.
- The court evaluated whether Sternberg’s claims fell within the court’s jurisdiction and whether state and federal laws supported his claims against these defendants.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, with leave for Sternberg to amend certain claims if possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction | Defendants conspired to remove children from Nevada, thus Nevada courts have jurisdiction | Defendants are in CA, acted in CA, no sufficient Nevada contacts | No jurisdiction; Sternberg failed to allege sufficient Nevada contacts, but given leave to amend |
| Rooker-Feldman Doctrine | Claims are independent/extrinsic fraud, not appeals of state court rulings | Claims are de facto appeals, thus barred | Most claims are barred as de facto appeals, except 2019 relocation claim |
| Failure to State a Claim (1983/1985) | Claimed conspiracy/joint action; §1985 does not require state action or class discrimination | Not state actors; no protected class or plausible conspiracy alleged | Claims fail; leave to amend if facts exist |
| Statute of Limitations | Claims re: 9/2021 arrest are timely; some actions are continuing violations | Claims before 9/20/21 are time-barred | Claims before 9/20/21 barred; arrest/seizure claims allowed to proceed |
| Noerr-Pennington Doctrine | Some conduct not protected petitioning; constitutional violations override doctrine | Sued for litigation/petitioning activity, so immune | Dismissed but leave to amend if allegations can state sham exception (with particularity) |
| State Law Claims (NRS 125C.0075, Tortious Interference, Abuse of Process, Civil Conspiracy) | Statutory and tort remedies available, or should be recognized | Statutory remedy exclusive; state torts not recognized | Most dismissed; leave to amend abuse of process, conspiracy, and to seek certification on parental right tort |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (explaining general personal jurisdiction standard)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (standard for general jurisdiction over corporations)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requirements)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability not enough for personal jurisdiction)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (scope of Rooker-Feldman doctrine)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for a plausible claim)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state action requirement under §1983)
- Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1989) (joint action test for private parties as state actors)
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (class-based animus requirement for §1985)
- Land Baron Inv. v. Bonnie Springs Fam. LP, 356 P.3d 511 (Nev. 2015) (abuse of process standard in Nevada)
- Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 971 P.2d 1251 (Nev. 1998) (civil conspiracy requirements)