Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 1 of 5

JAMES B. GILPIN, Bar No. 151466

James.Gilpin@bbklaw.com
MATTHEW L. GREEN, Bar No. 227904
Matthew. Green@bbklaw.com
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 W. Broadway, 15th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-1300
Facsimile: (619) 233-6118
Attorneys for Defendant
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (erroneously
sued as SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
25508.00086\8470708. I
Case No. 13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE
SUPERIOR COURT'S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
December 19, 2013
3:30 p.m.
4C
[NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
REQUESTED BY COURT]
Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013
REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
l 3-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 2 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a::
11
0
0
~ ~
-' I!' o
12 "- a:: UJ -
0 ~ - (\J
[;] w . Ol
ii: ~ <(
13
>:'.:;:: u
[;:000
01-<1:0
:;:: (/) 0 w
14 '.) :xJ :ll 0
I- iii z
(/) w <(
:xJ:;:: (/)
15
UJ
UJ
(()
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, erroneously
sued as Superior Court of San Diego County ("Superior Court"), respectfully
submits the following reply to Plaintiff Colbern C. Stuart's ("Stuart") opposition to
the Superior Court's motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs California Coalition for
Families and Children ("CCFC"), Lexevia, PC ("Lexevia"), and Stuart
(collectively, "Plaintiffs").
1
This motion for sanctions arises out of Plaintiffs' presentation to the Court of
a Complaint in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (b) and Local Civil
Rule 83.1. Plaintiffs' Complaint is being presented for an improper purpose,
namely to harass the Superior Court and its judicial officers and employees, and the
claims against the Superior Court are not warranted by law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
1 l(b)(l), (2). The Superior Court therefore seeks an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees in the amount of $10,675.00, which is the amount of attorneys' fees the
Superior Court incurred to prepare its motion to dismiss.2 (Doc. No. 16.)
Stuart's opposition criticizes the Superior Court for "parroting" its motion to
dismiss, devotes substantial space to arguing the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, and
attempts to justify the purpose for filing this action. (Doc. No. 56 at 2:19-4:8, 5:13-
19:16.) Because the Superior Court's motion for sanctions is based on Plaintiffs'
filing of the Complaint, Stuart's criticism regarding the similarities between the
sanctions motion and the motion to dismiss is puzzling. As to the merits of
Plaintiffs' claims, the absence of any chance of success is detailed in the Superior
Court's moving and reply papers for the motion to dismiss, as well as the moving
papers for the sanctions motion. See Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York,
Similar to the motion to dismiss, CCFC and Lexevia have not filed any opposition to the
motion for sanctions. Both entities remain unrepresented by counsel, and Lexevia is a suspended
corporation.
2
This figure does not include attorneys' fees incurred to prepare the reply brief for the
motion to dismiss, or any fees incurred to prepare the motion for sanctions, all of which are
recoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. ll(c)(2), (4); Buster v. Greisen, 104 F.3d 1186, 1190, fn. 5 (9th Cir.
1997).
25508.00086\8470708. I
-1- REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
I 3-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 3 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n:
11
0
0

_j f!: 0
12 "- n: ill -
0 (\j
Ul w . ())
w ii'. <(
13 u
0 0
Or-<(<.'.l
lll
0
w
14
f- Iii z
Ul w <(
Ul
15
ill
ill
(lJ
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
762 F.2d 243, 254 (2nd Cir. 1985). In the interest of brevity and reducing the
burden on the Court resulting from Plaintiffs' filing of this action, the numerous
grounds supporting the dismissal of the claims against the Superior Court are not
repeated here.
The only remaining argument in Stuart's opposition that warrants discussion
concerns the purpose for which this action was filed. The inclusion of the
residential addresses of Judges Trentacosta, Schall, Alksne, and Wohlfeil in the
Complaint, coupled with the mass dissemination of the Complaint on the Internet,
is demonstrative of Plaintiffs' intent to harass the Superior Court and its judicial
officers and employees. (Compl. <JI<JI 11, 22, 23, 29; Doc. No. 4, at 6: 18-7:5.)
Despite Stuart's arguments to the contrary, the publication of judges' home
addresses is nothing more than a scare tactic used to advance Plaintiffs' "reform
efforts" in "cur[ing] the systematic affliction" that Plaintiffs perceive to exist in the
family court system. (See Doc. No. 56 at 5:16-19.)
In a misguided attempt to justify the inclusion of judges' residential
addresses, Stuart asserts that the addresses are "required" to establish venue under
28 U.S.C. 139l(b). (Doc. No. 56 at 6:5-8, 6:11-13.) Contrary to Stuart's
assertion, all that need be alleged to establish venue based on the residency of a
defendant is that the defendant resides in a particular judicial district. 28 U.S.C.
1391 (b )( 1 ).
Not only is a home address not required, but Section l(h)(5) of the Court's
General Order 550 prohibits parties from including home addresses in all court
filings. While Stuart appears to argue that General Order 550's prohibition does
not apply because this action is akin to a criminal case, (Doc. No. 56 at 11:15-12:4),
Stuart also acknowledges it is not a criminal case. Moreover, even if the rule for
criminal cases applied to this action, only the city and state may be listed and only
if necessary. (Gen. Order 550 l(h)(5).) Given harassment is the ostensible
purpose of Plaintiffs' inclusion of judges' homes addresses, and that one of
25508.00086\8470708. I - 2 -
REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
l 3-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 4 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0:
11
0
0
a.. _J
_J "--
-' F= o
12 "-- 0: Ill
0 - (\)
UJ w . ())
w ii'. <(
13
<:> :<: :;;: ()
l::: 14 0 0
Oi--<(l'.l
:;;: UJ 0 w
14 '.) gj 0
f- In z
UJ w <(
:;;: UJ
15
Ill
Ill
<O
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs' primary objectives in filing this action is simply to publicize their alleged
"reform efforts," (Doc. No. 56 at 7:4-7; Doc. No. 56-1, Ex. A), sanctions are
warranted.
3
Dated: December 12, 2013 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By: /s/ Matthew L. Green
JAMES B. GILPIN
MATTHEW L. GREEN
Attorneys for Defendant
SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO (erroneously sued as
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY)
3
Stuart also challenges the Superior Court's standing to object to Plaintiffs' inclusion of the
residential addresses of Judges Trentacosta, Schall, Alksne, and Wohlfeil. (Doc. No. 56 at 11:11-
13.) Stuart's standing objection is curious. Stuart has made it clear that he "appears in this
litigation only prose," (Doc. No. 19-1 at 6:6-7.) Yet, in his opposition to the sanctions motion,
Stuart believes he has standing to defend the ability of CCFC and Lexevia to proceed in this
action without counsel, as well as Lexevia's capacity to proceed as a suspended corporation.
(Doc. No. 10:11-11:8.)
25508.00086\8470708. l - 3 -
REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT. FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 69 Filed 12/12/13 Page 5 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0::
11
0
0
~ ti
_, i!: o
12 u. 0: Ill
0 tl (\j
U) w . a>
w i i ~ <t:.
13
(,/ '<: 3: 0
i::KJOc)
01-<f.l?
3:ui0w
14 :):Jlffio
I- ti z
U) w <t:.
:Jj 3: U)
15
Ill
Ill
({)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed
to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this
document via the court's CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5(b )(2)(E). Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission
and/or first class mail this 12th day of December 2013.
25508.00086\8470708.I
/s/ Matthew L. Green
-4
REPLY TO OPP'N TO MOT FOR SANCTIONS
13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)