304 F.Supp.2d 1274 (D.N.M. 2003), Civ. 03-450, Stein v. Legal Advertising Committee of Disciplinary Bd.
|Docket Nº:||Civ. 03-450|
|Citation:||304 F.Supp.2d 1274|
|Party Name:||Stein v. Legal Advertising Committee of Disciplinary Bd.|
|Case Date:||June 17, 2003|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 10th Circuit, District of New Mexico|
Stuart L. Stein, Stuart L. Stein, PA, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiffs.
Jerry A. Walz, Walz & Associates, Cedar Crest, NM, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GARCIA, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court 1 on Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed April 14, 2003 [docs. 2, 3, 4] and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Principles of Abstention and/or Exhaustion, filed April 21, 2003 [doc. 11]. On April 14, 2003, Plaintiffs filed this Complaint for civil rights against the Legal Advertising Committee of the Disciplinary Board ("LAC"), Kelly A. Genova, Chair, Stan Harris, Suzanne M. Barker, C. Brian Charlton, John P. Cosentino, Michael P. Fricke, Troy W. Prichard, Gregory P. Sherman, Diane Helgevold, Barbara Montoya, and Dr. Phillip J. Simmons, all members of the LAC ("members of the LAC"), the Honorable Petra Maes, the Honorable Pamela B. Minzner, the Honorable Patricio M. Serna, the Honorable Richard C. Bosson, and the Honorable Edward L. Chavez, the Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court of New Mexico. In an earlier lawsuit ("Stein I"), Plaintiffs Stuart L. Stein and Stuart L. Stein P.A., sought to enjoin the State Bar disciplinary proceeding while
Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court's policies and procedures relating to lawyer advertising. The Complaint in Stein II raises constitutional claims concerning several proposed legal advertisements that Stuart L. Stein ("Stein" or "Plaintiffs") recently submitted for approval to the LAC, and which the LAC did not approve in April 2003.
The Stein II Complaint is remarkably similar to the First Amended Complaint filed by these same Plaintiffs against virtually the same Defendants in No. CIV 02-917 ("Stein I").2 The First Amended Complaint in Stein I concerned earlier proposed legal advertising by Stein that the LAC refused to approve. On February 6, 2003, this Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed Stein I, without prejudice, in accordance with principles of Younger abstention and exhaustion. [Doc. 65, No. CIV 02-917.] Plaintiffs were advised in Stein I that the case might be reinstated after resolution of the related and ongoing state disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiffs and after Plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies. [Doc. 65, No. CIV 02-917.] An almost identical Motion to Dismiss is now before the Court in Stein II.
After Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") in Stein II, the Court set a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP