Free Notice of Related Case - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 4

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DARLENE A. DORNAN, Court Counsel (State Bar No. 182228) Superior Court of California, County of San Diego By CHERYL L. BRIERTON, Litigation Attorney (State Bar No. 108242) 220 West Broadway San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 531-3036 Facsimile: (619) 685-6606 Attorneys for Defendant, The Honorable William McAdam, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) JACK LIEB ESQ. AND ASSOC., JUDGE ) ) W. MCADAM, ET AL., ) ) ) Defendants. ) LANTZ E. ARNELL, / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Case No.: 08-CV-00441 WQH (JMA) DEFENDANT JUDGE MCADAM'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (LOCAL RULE 40.1(e)) Date: Time: Crtrm: Judge: N/A N/A 4 (4th Floor) The Honorable William Q. Hayes

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE - 1

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 4

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant, the Honorable William McAdam ("Judge McAdam"), Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego ("California Court"), hereby provides notice of a related case, Lantz Arnell v. Judge W. McAdam, Case No. 07cv0743-LAB (RBB), and asks that the instant case be assigned to the district and magistrate judge to whom the lowest numbered case was assigned. (U.S. Dist. Ct, So. Dist Cal., Local Rule 40.1(e), (f), (h).) I. THE CASES ARE RELATED, BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE SOME OF THE SAME PARTIES AND ARE BASED ON SIMILAR CLAIMS; INVOLVE THE SAME TRANSACTION OR EVENT; AND INVOLVE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FACTS AND THE SAME QUESTIONS OF LAW. A. Proceedings in Lantz Arnell v. Judge W. McAdam, Case No. 07cv0743LAB (RBB):

On April 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed a 177-page Complaint in Lantz Arnell v. Judge W. McAdam, Case No. 07cv0743-LAB (RBB), based on Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with Judge McAdam's denial of Plaintiff's writ of coram nobis relating to Plaintif''s state misdemeanor case(s) in the California Court, initially arising from a neighborhood altercation. 1 The writ itself appeared to be premised on misconduct by Plaintiff's attorneys in the state misdemeanor case. With respect to relief, Plaintiff sought "dismissal of a misdemeanor charge based on false allegations of several conspirators

Attorney Jack Lieb represented Plaintiff Randlett Lawrence against Lanz Arnell in a related state civil suit. See, Defendant Judge McAdam's Request for Judicial Notice on his Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed June 12, 2007 in Lantz Arnell v. Judge W. McAdam, Case No. 07cv0743-LAB (RBB), Exhibit B: Minutes of March 26, 2007, in People v. Lantz Arnell, California Court Case No. S188356, reflecting Judge McAdam's denial of the petition for writ of coram nobis; Exhibit C: Lantz Arnell's Guilty Plea on March 3, 2004, in People v. Lantz Arnell, California Case No. S188356; Exhibit D, Minutes of December 15, 2006, in Randlett T. Lawrence v. Lantz E. Arnell, California State Trial Court Case No. GIS20077.

1

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE - 2

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 4

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

who have successfully interfered with the appellant's interstate commerce through violence and corruption", presumably a form of equitable and/or declaratory relief. In this case, the California State Judicial Branch Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice on June 12, 2007, amended June 19, 2007, based on judicial immunity and other theories. The Honorable Larry A. Burns, District Court Judge, took the motion under submission on August 8, 2007. Meanwhile, on June 29, 2007, Plaintiff Arnell moved that Judge Burns recuse himself. Judge Burns denied the motion on July 10, 2007. On July 23, 2007, Judge Burns next issued an order striking Plaintiff's successive motion for recusal, and set an Order to Show Cause hearing for August 13, 2007, re why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned. On August 3, 2007, Judge Burns struck Plaintiff's third successive motion for recusal, and issued an amended order to show case re sanctions. On August 8, 2007, Judge Burns further ordered Plaintiff to Show Cause why he should not be sanctioned or held in contempt. Following the hearing on August 13, 2007, Judge Burns imposed sanctions of $3,500 on Plaintiff, and denied the California State Judicial Branch Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot, based on Plaintiff's dismissal filed August 9, 2007. B. Allegations in Lantz Arnell v. Jack Lieb Esq. & Ass., Judge W. McAdam, et al., Case No. 07cv0743-LAB (RBB):

The allegations in the instant case arise from the same neighborhood altercation, and the resulting California Court criminal and civil cases. Specifically, Plaintiff is pleading a conspiracy between Judge McAdam and Jack Lieb, Plaintiff's opposing counsel in the state civil case at trial and on appeal (dismissed 3/28/07). Plaintiff alleges: 2 "murder, murder for hire, arson, identity theft, computer hacking, wire fraud,

2

Plaintiff's complaint is scurrilous and unfounded. A complaint must "contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.__ [127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929] (2007). The factual allegations must be definite enough to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." The pleadings must

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE - 3

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 4

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

white slavery, kidnapping, staged traffic accidents, jury tampering, election fraud & intimidation at polling places, corruption of public officials, financing of street gangs, insurance fraud, perpetuation of religious intolerance", racketeering. (Complaint, 3:134:3.) Plaintiff continues: "McAdam was paid with illicit funds to protect Lieb by denying a writ of coram nobis under color of writ relating to that case. [P] McAdam uses his influence to encourage the Judge and clerks in that case to give Lieb favorable rulings, with-hold documents, rearrange information in the file and block access to the appellate court." (Complaint, 5:6-12.) "There have been three attempts to either kill or maim the plaintiff by members of the CCE (continuing criminal enterprise)...Lieb and McAdam have used illicit funds from the illegal activities of the CCE to arrange for assassination attempts and are accessories to multiple counts of fraud, and attempted murder." (Complaint, 5:18-25.) "The illegal wire taps, rerouted and blocked telephone calls, mail fraud and the legion of con artists the CCE, including Lieb and McAdam, has paid to harass the pltf make the pursuit of normal business activity impossible." (Complaint, 9:3-7.) Clearly, these allegations relate to the same proceedings at issue before Judge Burns in the lower-numbered case. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / contain factual allegations "plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)" a right to relief. Id. at 1965.

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE - 4

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 4

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Defendant Judge McAdam prays that the instant action be assigned to Judge Burns, who is familiar with the facts and issues underlying this case. Such an assignment will promote judicial economy, ensure respect for Judge Burn's prior orders denying Plaintiff's motions for recusal, and forestall plaintiff's judge-shopping. Respectfully submitted, DARLENE A. DORNAN, Court Counsel Superior Court of California, County of San Diego DATED: April 7, 2008 By: ___s/ Cheryl L. Brierton__________________ CHERYL L. BRIERTON, Litigation Attorney Attorney for Defendant, The Honorable William McAdam, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE - 5

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 4

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 6 of 7

Case 3:08-cv-00441-LAB-RBB

Document 4

Filed 04/07/2008

Page 7 of 7