Igbanugo v. Humiston
| Decision Date | 09 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-CV-0105 (PJS/HB) |
| Parties | HERBERT A. IGBANUGO, Plaintiff, v. MINNESOTA OFFICE OF LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY [OLPR; SUSAN HUMISTON, in her official capacity as Director of OLPR; AMY HALLORAN, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Director at OLPR; JENNIFER BOVITZ, individually and in her official capacity as Managing Attorney at OLPR; LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD [LPRB; JEANNETTE BOERNER, individually and in her professional capacity as Attorney Member at LPRB; TOMMY KRAUSE, individually and in his professional capacity as Designated Board Member at LPRB; WILSON LAW GROUP; DAVID LEE WILSON, individually and in his official capacity as Founder and Managing Attorney at Wilson Law Group; MICHAEL GAVIGAN, individually and in his official capacity as Senior Attorney at Wilson Law Group; CASSONDRE BUTEYN, individually and in her official capacity as Co-Owner and Lead Attorney at Wilson Law Group; EVA RODELIUS, individually and in her official capacity as Senior Attorney at Wilson Law Group; AUST SCHMIECHEN, P.A.; BRIAN AUST, individually and in his official capacity as Purported Expert Witness in the Onofre Case and as Founding Partner of Aust Schmiechen, P.A., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Herbert A. Igbanugo, IGBANUGO PARTNERS INT'L LAW FIRM PLLC, pro se.
Janine W. Kimble, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, for defendants Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Susan Humiston, Amy Halloran, Jennifer Bovitz, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, Jeannette Boerner, and Tommy Krause.
Kelly A. Putney, Aram V. Desteian, and Khuram M. Siddiqui, BASSFORD REMELE, for defendants Wilson Law Group, David Lee Wilson Michael Gavigan, Cassondre Buteyn, and Eva Rodelius.
Aaron D. Sampsel and Scott A. Jurchisin, CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE PLLC, for defendants Aust Schmiechen, P.A., and Brian Aust.
Plaintiff Herbert Igbanugo is an attorney who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings that are pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court. Some of the allegations against him in those disciplinary proceedings also formed the basis of a malpractice action that several of Igbanugo's former clients recently won against him. Defendant Michael Gavigan and other attorneys from defendant Wilson Law Group represented Igbanugo's former clients in that malpractice action, and defendant Brian Aust testified as an expert witness on behalf of those former clients.
Igbanugo brings this action against Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (“OLPR”), Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (“LPRB”), and associated government officials (collectively the ); David Wilson, his firm Wilson Law Group, and other Wilson lawyers (Gavigan, Cassondre Buteyn (Wilson's wife), and Eva Rodelius) (collectively the “Wilson defendants”); and Aust and his firm, Aust Schmiechen, P.A. (collectively the “Aust defendants”).
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss and the Wilson and Aust defendants' motions for sanctions. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motions to dismiss and grants the motions for sanctions.
In the early 2000s, both Wilson and Buteyn worked for Blackwell Igbanugo, Igbanugo's previous firm. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 21, 38. Wilson and Buteyn left the firm sometime in late 2003 or early 2004, but not before Wilson (according to Igbanugo) stole confidential information, used improper methods to influence clients to follow him to his new firm, and diverted client funds to himself. Compl. ¶¶ 39-42, 46, 48, 71-76 & Ex. 80 at 2. Since then, Wilson and Igbanugo have been on bad terms, and each of them has submitted ethics complaints against the other to OLPR.[1] Compl. ¶¶ 56 & Exs. 14, 98.
In April 2016, Gavigan (an attorney at Wilson's law firm) brought malpractice and other claims against Igbanugo in state court on behalf of three of Igbanugo's former clients. Compl. ¶¶ 131 & Ex. 5. The parties refer to this as the “ Onofre ” action. The Onofre plaintiffs recovered damages from Igbanugo after a jury found that he had committed malpractice, breached contracts, and violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review. See Cedillo v. Igbanugo, No. A18-0860, 2019 WL 2168766 , rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 2019).
Meanwhile, in June 2018, around the time that the parties were cross-appealing the Onofre judgment, Gavigan submitted an ethics complaint against Igbanugo to OPLR. In that complaint, Gavigan reported (among other things) that Igbanugo had committed the misconduct that led to the Onofre jury's verdicts against him. Compl. ¶ 215 & Ex. 58.[2] This is not the first time that Igbanugo has faced professional discipline; prior to the initiation of the Onofre lawsuit, Igbanugo had been disciplined on four separate occasions. See In re Disciplinary Action against Igbanugo, 863 N.W.2d 751, 755, 764 (Minn. 2015) ().
OLPR investigated Gavigan's complaint and, on December 31, 2020, submitted charges to an LPRB panel for a probable-cause determination. Compl. ¶ 239 & Ex. 91. Igabanugo filed this action about two weeks later. Since this action was filed, the LPRB panel has found probable cause and OLPR has filed a petition for disciplinary action with the Minnesota Supreme Court. See In re Disciplinary Action against Igbanugo, No. A21-0338 (Minn. filed Mar. 15, 2021). The disciplinary action is currently pending before a referee, whose findings and recommendations are due on or before February 28, 2022. Id. (order filed Oct. 7, 2021).
Shortly after Gavigan submitted the ethics complaint against Igbanugo, Igbanugo submitted ethics complaints against Wilson, Gavigan, Buteyn, Rodelius, and Aust. Compl. ¶ 218 & Ex. 1A. The complaints claimed that the Onofre action was frivolous and that the Wilson and Aust defendants engaged in various types of misconduct in the course of winning that action. Compl.¶¶ 182-83, 189-95, 197-202, 204-14. OLPR dismissed the complaints againt Buteyn, Rodelius, and Aust without investigation. Compl. ¶ 219 & Exs. 60-63, 75. With respect to Wilson and Gavigan, OLPR opened investigations but later determined that there was insufficient evidence that either of them had violated the rules of professional conduct. Compl.¶¶ 219-20 & Exs. 72-73.
Igbanugo appealed the dismissal of his complaints against Wilson and Gavigan and, in November 2019, LPRB affirmed. Compl.¶¶ 224-25, Exs. 65-66, 80. Less than a month later, Igbanugo submitted a new complaint against Wilson, Gavigan, and Buteyn. Compl.¶ 226 & Ex. 81. OLPR dismissed the new complaint a few weeks later, and LPRB affirmed that decision on appeal. Compl. ¶ ¶ 227-29 & Exs. 71, 74, 83.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all of the factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.[3] Perez v. Does 1-10, 931 F.3d 641, 646 (8th Cir. 2019). Although the factual allegations need not be detailed, they must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
Igbanugo brings numerous constitutional claims against the state defendants, contending (among other things) that the pending disciplinary proceedings are racially discriminatory, violate his right to free speech, reflect selective prosecution, and were brought in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He also alleges what appear to be state-law claims of abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy.
At oral argument, Igbanugo clarified that he is not challenging any previous decision or disciplinary action taken against him by the state defendants. Instead, Igbanugo said that he wants this Court to order the state defendants not to admit any evidence from the Onofre case in the disciplinary proceedings against him until this Court first determines whether his civil rights were violated during the course of the Onofre litigation. Igbanugo also said that he wants this Court to order the state defendants to “leave [him] alone” and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Wilson and Aust defendants. Later during oral argument, however, Igbanugo seemed to walk back these requests for injunctive relief, insisting that he is not asking the Court to order the state defendants to do anything. Instead, Igbanugo said, he simply wants the Court to make findings as to “civil rights violations, ” apparently in the hope that he can introduce these “findings” in the pending disciplinary proceedings.
The state defendants argue that the Court should dismiss these claims against them under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423 (1982). The Court agrees.
“The Younger abstention doctrine, as it has evolved provides that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction when (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding, (2) which implicates important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant federal questions in the state proceeding.” Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2010). The underlying state proceeding must be judicial in nature, Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432-34, and it must fall within one...
To continue reading
Request your trial