Villa v. Heller
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110667
S.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue defendants including William Hellar for a RICO claim arising from alleged false elder-abuse and mortgage-regulator complaints tied to BC Lending and Acclaim Financial Services.
- Hellar allegedly learned Ruiz's license indicated BC Lending per Acclaim; he purchased a loan from Ruiz after confirming she was authorized to do business for Acclaim.
- Ruiz allegedly misappropriated $21,450 by defrauding Hellars; Hellar reported the incident to the San Diego Sheriff and the California Department of Corporations.
- Hellars settled a related state-court proceeding with ACIC for $23,000, releasing claims and dismissing the action with prejudice in consideration of settlement.
- ACIC later pursued a cross-claim against Acclaim and Villas in state court; default was entered against some but not all defendants, culminating in a settlement and dismissal with prejudice.
- The court previously held there is a state-court judgment for purposes of Rooker-Feldman; the instant action contests the same underlying matters via federal RICO claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the RICO claim | Hellar action not a collateral attack on state court judgment | Rooker-Feldman bars review of state-court judgments | Rooker-Feldman bar denied; no direct/indirect challenge to state judgment shown |
| Whether Noerr-Pennington immunity bars the RICO claim | Noerr-Pennington does not apply to the agency filings here | Agency filings are protected petitioning activity | RICO claim granted Noerr-Pennington protection; no sham or exception shown |
| Whether the RICO claim has a valid enterprise and pattern | There was an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity | No distinct RICO enterprise; no pattern or continuity | Summary judgment granted on RICO claim for lack of enterprise and pattern |
| Whether California litigation privilege defeats the RICO claim | Privilege likely does not apply to federal RICO claims | Civil Code § 47(b) provides absolute immunity | RICO preempts state litigation privilege; privilege does not bar claim |
| Sanctions under Rule 11 | Sanctions sought for frivolous filing | Procedural safe harbor not satisfied; possible sanctions if warranted | Sanctions denied; 21-day safe harbor not met and no basis shown for sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (materiality and genuine issue of fact)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman narrow application; jurisdictional limits)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1989) (definition of pattern and continuity in RICO)
- Forro Precision, Inc. v. IBM Corp., 673 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1982) (Noerr-Pennington protection extends to agency/citizen communications with police)
- Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (U.S. 1972) (Noerr-Pennington extends to governmental channels and courts)
- Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006) (Noerr-Pennington application and sham exception considerations)
- Sherrard v. Panazuelos, 2011 WL 1131523 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (settlement judgments treated for collateral attack analysis)
- Boeken v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 48 Cal.4th 789 (Cal. 2010) (state judgment finality for res judicata purposes)
- Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2006) (judicial notice admissibility of court filings and public records)