446 F.Supp.3d 566
D. Ariz.2020Background
- Plaintiff Peter Strojnik filed hundreds of ADA/AzDA suits on behalf of clients; State Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging fraud and seeking interim suspension.
- PDJ O’Neil granted interim suspension; Plaintiff attempted to resign but was barred from resigning while proceedings were pending; he later consented to disbarment.
- Plaintiff sued the State Bar of Arizona, senior counsel Shauna Miller, and chief counsel Maret Vessella alleging ADA/§1981 retaliation, conspiracy, tort claims, and emotional distress; also named spouses as John Doe defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for the State Bar and absolute/quasi‑judicial immunity for the State Bar lawyers.
- The Court took judicial notice of disciplinary records, found the State Bar an arm of the state, held that ADA/§12203 did not abrogate immunity for Plaintiff’s licensing‑type claim, and found counsel entitled to absolute quasi‑judicial immunity.
- The Court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against the State Bar, Miller, Vessella, and the unnamed spouses with prejudice; amendment was futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State Bar is an arm of the state and immune under the Eleventh Amendment | Strojnik: State Bar acted as a private nonprofit, not an arm of the state | State Bar: is an arm of the Arizona Supreme Court and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | Court: State Bar is an arm of the state and immune |
| Whether Arizona waived sovereign immunity (Stone) | Strojnik: Arizona abolished sovereign immunity in Stone, allowing suit | State: Stone only addresses waiver in state court; no federal waiver | Court: Stone does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court; no waiver found |
| Whether ADA (42 U.S.C. §12203 / Title II) validly abrogates state immunity for Plaintiff's retaliation claim | Strojnik: Congress abrogated immunity via the ADA; Title V retaliation claim removes immunity | State: ADA does not validly abrogate immunity for licensing/professional‑licensing disputes at issue | Court: ADA did not abrogate immunity for this licensing‑related retaliation claim; Title II abrogation limited to access‑to‑courts contexts (Lane) |
| Whether Miller and Vessella are entitled to absolute/quasi‑judicial immunity | Strojnik: their acts were investigative (not prosecutorial), so no absolute immunity | Defendants: bar counsel performing investigative/prosecution/licensing functions are entitled to absolute quasi‑judicial immunity | Court: Counsel entitled to absolute/quasi‑judicial immunity for investigatory and prosecutorial functions; claims against them dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (limits Congress's §5 abrogation power over state immunity)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (Eleventh Amendment bars suit against nonconsenting states)
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (Congress did not validly abrogate immunity for Title I ADA employment claims)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (Title II abrogation valid when fundamental right of access to courts implicated)
- Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (state waiver of Eleventh Amendment must be unequivocal)
- Simons v. Bellinger, 643 F.2d 774 (absolute immunity for state‑bar officials performing investigatory/prosecutorial/judicial‑like functions)
- Clark v. State of Wash., 366 F.2d 678 (state bar disciplinary functions treated as integral to judicial process; immunity)
- Hirsh v. Justices of Sup. Ct. of State of Cal., 67 F.3d 708 (bar judges and prosecutors have quasi‑judicial immunity)