Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesattorneyliabilityappealhearingmotioncivil rights
plaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesliabilitymotioncivil rights

Related Cases

Farris v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 119 Cal.App.4th 671, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 618, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5355, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7318
View Case »
Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz, 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 128 Cal.Rptr. 901
View Case »
In re Refco Inc. Securities Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 7007795
View Case »
McDonald v. Emory Healthcare Eye Center, 391 Fed.Appx. 851
View Case »
In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation, 93 F.Supp.2d 1348, 2000-2 Trade Cases P 72,981
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ricotta v. State of Cal., 4 F.Supp.2d 961

Facts

The case arose from marriage dissolution proceedings initiated by Ellen Ricotta against Thomas Ricotta in 1991. Over the years, multiple hearings, motions, and appeals took place, resulting in Ellen being awarded money and property from the marital estate. Thomas alleged that various judges, attorneys, and state officials conspired against him, leading to violations of his civil rights and unfair treatment during the dissolution process. He filed an Amended Complaint in 1997, naming multiple defendants and claiming damages for the alleged misconduct.

The facts and circumstances of this case arise from marriage dissolution proceedings between Plaintiff and his former wife Ellen Ricotta. On April 30, 1991, Ellen Ricotta filed a petition for dissolution against Plaintiff in San Diego County Superior Court.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether the judges and court commissioner were immune from suit, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims against state entities, and whether the plaintiff adequately alleged a pattern of racketeering activity.

The judges and court commissioner were immune from suit; the Eleventh Amendment barred suit against the court commissioner, the state bar, and the state commission on judicial performance; plaintiff did not adequately allege a pattern of racketeering activity; the Rooker–Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff's request to invalidate judgments entered against him in the dissolution proceeding; the civil rights claims were time-barred; plaintiff did not adequately allege civil rights claims against the county or against the individual defendants.

Rule

The court applied principles of judicial immunity, which protect judges from liability for actions taken in their official capacity, and the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits against states and state entities in federal court.

Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely free from liability for damages for acts performed in their official capacities.

Analysis

The court found that the judges and court commissioner were immune from suit as their actions were performed in their official capacities. It also determined that the Eleventh Amendment barred the plaintiff's claims against the state entities. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege a pattern of racketeering activity and that his civil rights claims were time-barred.

The Court spent considerable time reading and re-reading Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. At the outset the Court must note that it found the Amended Complaint very difficult to follow. More importantly, the Amended Complaint is filled with conclusory allegations.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the plaintiff's first, second, and fourth causes of action with prejudice, granted the request to set aside a default against one defendant, and denied the request for contempt against the individual defendants. The case was directed to be closed in its entirety.

For the reasons set forth below this Court: 1) DISMISSES with PREJUDICE Plaintiff's first and third causes of action as to all Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case as the court dismissed the majority of the plaintiff's claims, citing judicial immunity and lack of jurisdiction.

Motions granted in part and denied in part.

You must be