Case: 09-35928 01/29/2010 Page: 1 of 31 ID: 7213651 DktEntry: 10 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT _______________________________ JERRY O‟NEIL, et al., C.A. No. 09-35928 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. CV-00091-DWM-JCL District of Montana, Missoula v. STATE BAR OF MONTANA, et al., Defendants-Appellees. BRIEF OF STATE APPELLEES On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Presiding APPEARANCES: STEVE BULLOCK Montana Attorney General CHRIS D. TWEETEN* Chief Civil Counsel J. STUART SEGREST* Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620-1401 (406) 444-2026 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES *Counsel of Record Case: 09-35928 01/29/2010 Page: 2 of 31 ID: 7213651 DktEntry: 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................ III STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...............................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE .......................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .....................................................................5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..............................................................7 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 10 I. AS CONCEDED BELOW, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE THE ROOKER-FELDMAN BAR PRECLUDED JURISDICTION. ...............................................................................................10 A. Standard of Review ..............................................................................10 B. Plaintiffs Conceded the Correctness of the Magistrate Judge‟s Conclusion That Rooker-Feldman Barred the Amended Complaint, Did Not File a Proper Objection To It, And Have Not Argued Against It on Appeal. They Have Therefore Waived the Issue. .........................................11 C. In Any Case, The Magistrate Judge and District Court Correctly Applied the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. .......................12 II. THE MOTION TO FILE THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DENIED AS FUTILE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED COMPLAINT WOULD, IF FILED, BE SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL. ...................................................17 A. Standard of Review ..............................................................................18 i Case: 09-35928 01/29/2010 Page: 3 of 31 ID: 7213651 DktEntry: 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Broad Discretion by Denying the Motion to Amend Where the Third Amended Complaint Would Still Be Subject to Dismissal for Several Reasons. .....................................................19 1. The Proposed Amended Complaint Would Be Barred by Rooker Feldman ......................................................19 2. The Relief Plaintiffs Seek on Appeal Requests an Advisory Opinion as well as Relief that Cannot Be Granted by the State Defendants. ......................20 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 23 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ........................................................ 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................... 24 ii Case: 09-35928 01/29/2010 Page: 4 of 31 ID: 7213651 DktEntry: 10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Allen v. Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1990)................................................................. 18 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) .............................................................................. 19 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1963) ........................................................................ 13, 15 Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic Indust., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) .............................................................................. 12 Greenwood v. Federal Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................... 11 Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) .............................................................................. 14 Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Association v. Klamath Medical Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1983) .............................................................. 17 Kougasian v. TMSL, 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 15 Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006) .............................................................................. 14 Meehan v. County of Los Angeles, 856 F.2d 102 (9th Cir. 1988)........................................................... 11, 20 Montana Supreme Court Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law v. O'Neil, 2006 MT 284, 334 Mont. 311, 147 P.3d 200 ...........................................5 iii Case: 09-35928 01/29/2010 Page: 5 of 31 ID: 7213651 DktEntry: 10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.) Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1118 (1997) ....... 16 Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................. 10, 13, 16 O'Neil v. Montana Supreme Court Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 127 S. Ct. 1868 (2007) .............................................................................5 Pritikin v. DOE, 254 F.3d 791 .......................................................................................... 22 Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, 525 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2008)................................................................. 15 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, 263 U.S. 413 (1923) .............................................................................. 12 Stormans v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 21 United States v. $25,000 U.S. Currency, 853 F.2d 1501 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................. 23 United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1989)................................................................. 12 Yakima Indian Nation v. Washington Department of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 1999) .............................................................. 18 iv Case: 09-35928 01/29/2010 Page: 6 of 31 ID: 7213651 DktEntry: 10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.) FEDERAL AUTHORITIES United States Constitution Art. III.......................................................................................................1 United States Code 28 U.S.C. § 1257 ................................................................................... 12 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) ................................................................................ 12 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 32(a)(7)(C) .................................................................................... 25 Rule 9(b) ................................................................................................ 16 Rule 12(b)(6) ................................................................................... 16, 22 Rule 15(a)(2) ......................................................................................... 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b)(3) ......................................................................................... 12 Rule 25(d) .................................................................................................2 v Case: 09-35928 01/29/2010 Page: 7 of 31 ID: 7213651 DktEntry: 10 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION As determined below, the District Court lacked jurisdiction because of the Rooker-Feldman bar, as argued more fully herein. Additionally, none of the statutes cited by the Plaintiffs in their “Jurisdictional Statement,” nor Article III of the United States Constitution, conferred jurisdiction on the District Court. State Defendants agree, however, that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Did the District Court err in dismissing this case where the Plaintiffs seek reversal of a state-court judgment and any secondary relief regarding O‟Neil‟s right to practice before tribal or federal tribunals may not be granted by the State Defendants? STATEMENT OF THE CASE Due to the Plaintiffs‟ sparse statement of the case, along with several incorrect cites in their statement of the case and facts, the Montana Supreme Court Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Eleventh Judicial Case: 09-35928 01/29/2010 Page: 8 of 31 ID: 7213651 DktEntry: 10 District Court, Montana Supreme Court, Steve Bullock,1 Attorney General of Montana, and Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, Office of Fair Hearings (collectively referred to as “State Defendants”), submit the following. The original Complaint in this case was filed by Jerry O‟Neil (“O‟Neil”) in June of 2008. The primary relief sought was a declaration that a prior state judgment, “State of Montana v. O‟Neil,” is “a void judgment.” (SER 100-101, Dkt. # 1.) Along with the State Defendants, the State Bar of Montana and Betsy Brandborg were listed as defendants. Also listed were two federal defendants, Deborah Platt Majoras, then Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and Thomas O. Barnett, then Acting Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. (SER 96.) After a motion to dismiss was filed by the federal defendants, O‟Neil was granted leave to file an Amended