Abbott v. Vavala
| Decision Date | 15 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | C. A. 2021-0409 JJC |
| Parties | RICHARD L. ABBOTT, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN M. VAVALA, DAVID A. WHITE, COLLINS J. SEITZ, JR., JAMES T. VAUGHN, JR., TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES, GARY F. TRAYNOR, AND KAREN L. VALIHURA, Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Chancery of Delaware |
RICHARD L. ABBOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
KATHLEEN M. VAVALA, DAVID A. WHITE, COLLINS J. SEITZ, JR., JAMES T. VAUGHN, JR., TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES, GARY F. TRAYNOR, AND KAREN L. VALIHURA, Defendants.
C. A. No. 2021-0409 JJC
Court of Chancery of Delaware
February 15, 2022
Submitted: December 3, 2021
Richard L. Abbott, Esquire, Abbott Law Firm, Hockessin, Delaware, Attorney for the Plaintiff.
Ryan T. Costa, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
Jeffrey J Clark Resident Judge [1]
Plaintiff Richard Abbott sues to enjoin seven individuals from performing their official duties in Delaware's attorney disciplinary process. As defendants, he names the five members of the Delaware Supreme Court and two attorneys from Delaware's Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC"). In addition to requesting an injunction, he seeks a declaration that the process is unlawful and unconstitutional as applied to him. Finally, he requests that the Court place Delaware's attorney disciplinary system into receivership.
The Defendants move to dismiss Mr. Abbott's complaint pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 12(b)(1) and (6). First, they contend that the Court of Chancery does not have jurisdiction to issue an order that prohibits all five members of the State's highest court and ODC's attorneys from prosecuting and deciding Mr. Abbott's disciplinary case. In addition, the Defendants seek to dismiss his claims based upon judicial, quasi-judicial, and prosecutorial immunity. Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss all counts in the complaint for failure to state claims.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses Mr. Abbott's suit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). No trial court in Delaware has jurisdiction over attorney discipline or governance matters. Based upon that premise, it follows that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive or declaratory relief against the individuals who are part and parcel of a higher Court that holds exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. As a result, the Court need not separately address the Defendants' immunity defenses or the Rule 12(b)(6) component of their motion.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Abbott claims that the disciplinary action filed against him is unlawful, conspiratorial, and discriminatory. Pursuant to the parties' last report to the Court,
he awaits a Board of Professional Responsibility ("BPR") panel decision that will address his alleged misconduct.[2]
Before Mr. Abbott filed this suit, he attempted to halt or otherwise alter the course of his disciplinary proceedings in several other venues. First, after a judicial officer in the Court of Chancery registered the complaint at issue against him, he countered with a filing against that officer in the Court on the Judiciary.[3] That Court found Mr. Abbott's complaint against the judicial officer to be without merit and dismissed it.[4]
Second, Mr. Abbott filed a Delaware State Public Integrity Commission ("PIC") complaint against ODC's former Chief Counsel.[5] He alleged that she had a conflict in prosecuting his disciplinary complaint because she harbored an ambition to become a judge.[6] He claimed that this conflict of interest, in turn, created a public perception of impropriety.[7] After considering his arguments, PIC found that it lacked jurisdiction to address her alleged misconduct because it involved her law-related functions as a state-employed attorney.[8] As a result, it dismissed his action against her.[9]
Mr. Abbott then requested that the Superior Court review PIC's decision by writ of certiorari.[10] When considering his request for the writ, the Superior Court confirmed that PIC lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his petition.[11] The Supreme Court then affirmed the Superior Court's decision.[12] When doing so, it reiterated its long-standing recognition that ODC is "an arm of the Supreme Court" and counsel for the ODC are employees of the Supreme Court.[13] Moreover, the Delaware Supreme Court explained that if a lower court were to attempt to command ODC or its counsel to take action regarding a disciplinary complaint, it "would infringe on the Supreme Court's exclusive authority over the discipline of Delaware lawyers."[14]
Mr. Abbott next filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.[15] There, the District Court analyzed claims that are nearly identical to what Mr. Abbott brings in this case. It dismissed his complaint based upon the Younger abstention doctrine.[16] When Mr. Abbott moved, in the alternative, to amend his complaint, the District Court judge denied the amendment, as futile,
because Mr. Abbott could not identify facts that would permit his claims to survive judicial or quasi-judicial immunity or, separately, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.[17] Mr. Abbott then appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[18]
After the District Court dismissed his federal suit, with the Third Circuit appeal pending, Mr. Abbott filed the present suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In this action, he alleges, as he did in federal court, that two ODC attorneys and the five members of the Delaware Supreme Court unfairly target small practitioners such as him. Based upon this alleged impropriety, he contends that the Defendants have collectively violated and continue to violate his United States Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. He contends that these allegedly infringed-upon rights are actionable pursuant to (1) the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Ch. 96; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (hereinafter "Section 1983"); (3) and Delaware's RICO statute, 11 Del. C. Ch. 15. As to his state and federal RICO claims, he alleges that the Defendants are members of a collective enterprise formed to unlawfully target him and those like him.
In his present suit, Mr. Abbott requested that the Court grant a temporary restraining order and a proposed order to expedite the proceedings. For the reasons explained on the record after the hearing, the Court denied his request for a TRO and to expedite the proceedings.[19] Mr. Abbott then sought interlocutory review and this Court declined to certify it.[20] The Supreme Court refused to accept it.[21] At present, he seeks a permanent injunction, a declaratory judgment, and to place the entire disciplinary system into receivership.
The Defendants now move to dismiss his complaint pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The parties briefed the matter and the Court held oral argument on November 22, 2021. The Court then invited the parties to provide authority, mandatory or persuasive, that addresses a trial court's power to control the official functions of those who sit on a higher court. The parties provided supplemental case law on the issue on December 3, 2021.
Most recently, on December 14, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its decision in his federal case. There, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of his claims.[22] The Third Circuit did so based upon the principles outlined in Younger v. Harris.[23] As part of its analysis, the Third Circuit explained that Delaware's disciplinary system was judicial in nature and that the process provides Mr. Abbott an adequate and appropriate forum to fully resolve his claims.[24]
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are those presented in Mr. Abbott's verified complaint, which are assumed to be true. They also include those of which the Court takes judicial notice for purposes of evaluating subject matter jurisdiction. As to the latter, the Court recognizes the structure, nature, and functions of Delaware's attorney disciplinary system
Mr. Abbott has been a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Delaware since December 1989.[25] The defendants include all five members of the Delaware Supreme Court. They also include the Chief and Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel of ODC.[26]
The Delaware Supreme Court is the highest court in the State of Delaware.[27]The Court of Chancery is a court of limited jurisdiction that hears matters in equity.[28]ODC is considered "an arm" of the Delaware Supreme Court.[29] Furthermore, the Preliminary Review Committee ("PRC"), and the Board on Professional Responsibility ("BPR") are also separate arms of the Court.[30]
The attorney disciplinary process provides multiple levels of procedural protection for an attorney-respondent who is accused of misconduct. First, ODC is the agency charged with screening, evaluating, and investigating misconduct by Delaware attorneys that may be grounds for professional discipline.[31] After the ODC evaluates a matter, it may then present charges to the PRC by submitting a proposed petition for discipline.[32] Upon presentation of the petition, the respondent-attorney has the opportunity to submit written information to the PRC in response to the allegations.[33] If the PRC, upon review of the ODC complaint and the respondent's
submissions, finds probable cause to believe that the respondent has committed misconduct, it then refers the matter for formal disciplinary proceedings.[34] In that way, the PRC screens cases for prima facie merit as would a grand jury in the criminal process.[35] If the PRC finds probable cause to believe the respondent-attorney has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and approves a petition for discipline, the ODC then files the petition with the BPR.[36]
When the matter comes before a BPR panel, the respondent-attorney first has the opportunity to file an answer.[37] The BPR chair will then schedule pre-hearing conferences as necessary to address "administrative, evidentiary, or procedural issues."[38] BPR hearings are on the record, witnesses are under oath and subject to cross-examination, and briefing and oral arguments...
To continue reading
Request your trial