Cobb v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

• Decision Date: 26 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. C 12-01372 JSW,C 12-01372 JSW
• Parties: JONATHAN COBB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

JONATHAN COBB, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

No. C 12-01372 JSW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: October 26, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS

TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

(Docket Nos. 15, 21, 25, 44, 49, 74)

INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court for consideration are motions to dismiss filed by: (1) the City of Menlo Park ("Menlo Park"); (2) Dennis J. Sinclitico, Esq. ("Sinclitico") and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP ("Morgan Lewis"); (3) Anthony V. Smith, Esq. ("Smith"); (4) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan"); (5) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"); and the United States of America ("United States").¹ Smith also has filed a special motion to strike, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, the Anti-SLAPP² statute.

On September 6, 2012, Plaintiffs, Jonathan Cobb Sr. ("Cobb Sr.") and Jason Cobb, filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, on the basis that they intended to dismiss the claims against defendants Ernest Brede ("Brede"), Luis Contreras ("Contreras"), and Donald T. Showers III ("Showers"). Plaintiffs were not required to amend in order to dismiss the claimsagainst Brede, Contreras and Showers.³ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(1)(A). On September 11, 2012, the Court denied the motion for leave to amend, but it ordered Plaintiffs to file a notice of dismissal.

On September 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal, and they subsequently withdrew it. (See Docket Nos. 90-91.) Plaintiffs stated that the Notice of Dismissal was filed "in error as such does not reflect the thoughts and intentions of both Plaintiffs," and that Jason Cobb was going to dismiss his claims. (Docket No. 91, Notice of Withdrawal at 2, Ex. B.) Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES all claims asserted by Jason Cobb.

The Court has considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, the motions to dismiss. The Court DENIES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Smith's special motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2012, Cobb, Sr. filed the Complaint in this action. On March 21, 2012, Cobb Sr. filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which is the operative pleading. Cobb, Sr. is a former member of The English Menlo Park Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (the "Congregation"), and he was an officer and director of The English Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Menlo Park, California, Inc., a non-profit corporation (the "Corporation").⁴ (FAC ¶¶ 9-10.) Cobb, Sr. alleges that Brede, Contreras, and Showers improperly removed him from his position an officer and director of the Corporation. According to Cobb Sr., this action was part of a scheme to assume the control of the property and assets of the Congregation, which is held by the Corporation, and as part of a money laundering scheme. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 12-14, 44, 48-49, 51.)

Cobb, Sr. further alleges that Brede, Contreras, and Showers used Jason Cobb's identity to open a bank account at JPMorgan, improperly added their names to existing bank accounts atWells Fargo, and removed the Cobbs as signatories on the accounts. (FAC ¶¶ 19, 53-54.) Cobb Sr. alleges that bank records from JPMorgan and Wells Fargo will provide evidence of the alleged money laundering scheme. (See, e.g., id., ¶¶ 2, 19, 44, 93.) Jason Cobb brought these concerns to the attention of the Menlo Park Police Department ("MPPD"). (Id. ¶¶ 45, 59.) Cobb, Sr. alleges that, upon learning of Jason's report, Brede and Showers filed a police report with the MPPD, in which they falsely accused Jason Cobb of stealing the Corporation's funds. (Id. ¶ 61.) Jason Cobb also requested that the District Attorney's Office for San Mateo investigate the actions taken by Brede, Showers and Contreras, but it declined to do so. (Id.,¶ 68, Ex. 7.) Cobb Sr. alleges that Smith, on behalf of an alleged RICO enterprise, bribed members of the MPPD in order get the MPPD to halt the investigation and "affected and influenced the response from the District Attorney's Office for San Mateo County declining [the] request for an investigation." (FAC ¶¶ 69-70, 75.)

On August 31, 2010, Cobb, Sr. filed a lawsuit against Brede, Contreras and Showers, in which he challenged his removal as an officer of the Corporation, which was assigned to Chief Magistrate Judge James ("Judge James"), Cobb v. Brede, N.D. Cal. Case No. 10-CV-3907 (hereinafter the "Brede litigation"). Smith represented Brede, Contreras, and Showers in the Brede litigation. (FAC ¶ 15.) On May 23, 2011, Jason Cobb filed a lawsuit against a number of his co-workers at Cisco Systems, Inc., which was assigned to Magistrate Judge Ryu ("Judge Ryu"), Cobb v. Consunji, N.D. Cal. Case No. 11-CV-2496 (hereinafter the "Consunji litigation"). Cobb, Sr. is not a party to Consunji litigation. Sinclitico and Morgan Lewis represented the defendants in Consunji litigation. (FAC ¶¶ 16-17.)

During discovery in the Brede litigation and the Consunji litigation, the Cobbs issued subpoenas to Wells Fargo and JPMorgan, in an effort to obtain the bank records that Cobb, Sr. alleges will contain evidence of the money laundering scheme. Cobb, Sr. further alleges that each of the Defendants has acted to prevent him from obtaining access to those records. For example, Cobb Sr. alleges that Sinclitico and Smith, in conjunction with the Court Defendants, created false orders that terminated the Brede litigation and the Consunji litigation. (See generally FAC ¶¶ 76-80.) Cobb Sr. alleges that JPMorgan and Wells Fargo assisted theseefforts by engaging in "evasiveness and delay tactics" to avoid producing the documents covered by the subpoenas. (Id. ¶¶ 92-96.)

Based on these and other allegations, which will be addressed as needed in the remainder of this Order, Cobb Sr. asserted four claims for relief: (1) violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (the "Civil RICO claim"), 18 U.S.C. § 1692(c) (FAC ¶¶ 97-209); (2) Conspiracy to Violate RICO (the "RICO Conspiracy claim"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (FAC ¶¶ 210-216); (3) Slander in violation of California Civil Code section 46 (FAC ¶¶ 217-220); and (4) Civil Conspiracy in violation of California Civil Code section 1741.10 (FAC ¶¶ 221-225).⁵

ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Legal Standards.

A motion to dismiss is proper under Rule 12(b)(6) where the pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and all material allegations in the complaint are taken to be true. Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). Cobb Sr. is proceeding pro se, and the Court must construe pro se filings liberally. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). Even under the liberal pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).

Pursuant to Twombly, a plaintiff must not merely allege conduct that is conceivable but must instead allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows thecourt to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.... When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the allegations are insufficient to state a claim, a court should grant leave to amend, unless amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990); Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. The Court Grants the United States' Motion to Dismiss.

The United States moves to be substituted in as the sole federal defendant, and it moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity. The United States also moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim and argues the Court Defendants are protected by the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. The Court finds the latter argument dispositive.⁶

The Ninth Circuit has held that clerks of court and law clerks have absolute immunity when performing quasi-judicial functions in damages actions. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-45 (9th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds; Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1996). Quasi-judicial functions include those activities coordinated with a judge and court proceedings. Moore, 96 F.3d at 1244-45; Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390. Allegations of conspiracy do not defeat such immunity. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). "Judicialimmunity applies 'however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.'" Id. (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985)).

The Court has reviewed the allegations in the FAC. Those allegations show that the claims against the Court Defendants arise from activities such as making docket entries and processing orders in the Brede litigation and the Consunji litigation. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 81, 86, 91, 107, 139, 141, 143-144,...