Mezzano v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of the State

• Docket Number: 3:23-cv-00324-RJC-CSD
• Decision Date: 31 July 2023
• Parties: ROCHELLE MEZZANO, JAY V. SHORE, individually, and as next friend for Rochelle Mezzano, Plaintiff, v. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, as a covered entity under the Americans with Disabilities Act; THE STATE OF NEVADA; BRIDGET E. ROBB, individually, and in her professional capacity as Judge; ALICIA LERUD, individually, and as Trial Court Administrator and Clerk for the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada; EMILY REED, Individually, and as ADA Coordinator and Assistant Court Administrator for the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada; WILLIAM M. WRIGHT, JR. individually, and as Assistant Court Administrator for the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

1

ROCHELLE MEZZANO, JAY V. SHORE, individually, and as next friend for Rochelle Mezzano, Plaintiff, v. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, as a covered entity under the Americans with Disabilities Act; THE STATE OF NEVADA; BRIDGET E. ROBB, individually, and in her professional capacity as Judge; ALICIA LERUD, individually, and as Trial Court Administrator and Clerk for the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada; EMILY REED, Individually, and as ADA Coordinator and Assistant Court Administrator for the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada; WILLIAM M. WRIGHT, JR. individually, and as Assistant Court Administrator for the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Defendants.

No. 3:23-cv-00324-RJC-CSD

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 31, 2023

ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL

ROBERT C. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In filing this case, pro se plaintiffs Rochelle Mezzano and Jay Shore are seeking to improperly enjoin and otherwise thwart ongoing state court divorce proceedings. Plaintiff Rochelle Mezzano's divorce proceedings have been pending in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada for four years. On July 5, 2023, the day before her divorce trial was to proceed, Plaintiff Mezzano and non-attorney Plaintiff Jay Shore, as next friend of Rochelle Mezzano, filed this action against the presiding state court judge and court administration seeking federal intervention. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requesting that this Court remove the divorce case to federal court and enjoin Judge Robb from further acting or adjudicating the dispute. Plaintiffs additionally request declaratory relief in the form of an instruction to the Defendants on how to act and behave in accordance with the ADA. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek the answers to at least thirty-six (36) separate questions about the ADA.

For the reasons given herein, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Complaint is frivolous and brought in bad faith, and hereby grants dismissal of this action in its entirety. Further pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims under the Younger and Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrines. Finally pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), even under the most liberal pleadings standards, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against. Accordingly dismissal is appropriate.

I. BACKGROUND

The following background facts are adopted from the Complaint:

This action arises out of an ongoing divorce case pending in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada (“SJDC”). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff Rochelle Mezzano (“Mezzano”) and her husband John Townley are parties to the divorce action that has been pending for nearly four years. (Id. at 5 (citing Townley v. Mezzano, DV 19-01564 (Second Judicial District Court of Nevada))^[1].

On or about January 11, 2023, acting on behalf of Mezzano, Plaintiff Jay Shore (“Shore”) called Clerk of Court Alicia Lerud requesting the email or fax number for the ADA Coordinator. (Id. at 6). Ms. Lerud told him that he could send the request to her. (Id.).

On January 12, 2023, Shore sent a letter to Lerud and Judge Robb. (Id. at Ex. A). Within that letter, Shore explains that he is not an attorney but rather is acting as an ADA Advocate on behalf of Mezzano. (Id.). After disclaiming any legal acumen, Shore spends three pages of the letter criticizing Mezzano's counsel and criticizing Judge Robb's rulings in the divorce action. (Id. at Ex. A pp 3-5). In the letter, Shore claims that Mezzano is a qualified individual with a disability and requests the following accommodations:

• Ms. Mezzano needs the ability to attend any and all Court proceedings via Zoom or other video interface remotely from her home;

• The undersigned Advocate needs the ability to attend any and all Court proceedings via Zoom or other video interface remotely;

• Ms. Mezzano needs the ability to record any and all hearings, proceedings, calls, or other interactions with the Court, to mitigate communication disability;

• Ms. Mezzano needs the undersigned Advocate to assist (aid and encourage - 42 U.S.C. §12203(b)) her in the exercise and enjoyment of her rights under the ADA. This includes, without limitation, the ability to calm her, or help her refocus on the matters at hand; the ability to converse with her about what symptomatic presentations are arising, and how to mitigate these responses, commonly referred to as triggers; and the ability to ask the Court for a break to allow refocus or discussion of disability mitigation to allow Ms. Mezzano to maintain as high a level of executive function/cognitive presence as possible. The ADA Advocate also needs to be able to ask the Court on behalf of Ms. Mezzano, to give the static, complete, full, and permanent meaning to any words or terms that are unclear to Ms. Mezzano, or the Advocate;

• Ms. Mezzano needs to be able to ask the Court for, and receive from the Court, the static, complete, full and permanent meaning to any words or terms that are unclear to Ms. Mezzano;

• Ms. Mezzano needs the Court to use only plain English, and refrain from using legalese or terms that are unclear, without first providing a glossary of said terms that contain static, complete, full, and permanent meaning to any words or terms that are or may be unclear to Ms. Mezzano;

• Ms. Mezzano needs the Court to order that the opposing counsel or opposing party only use plain English, and refrain from using legalese or terms that are unclear to Ms. Mezzano, without first providing a glossary of said terms that contain static, complete, full, and permanent meaning to any words or terms that are or may be unclear to Ms. Mezzano;

• Ms. Mezzano demands that the Court refrain from unlawful acts of coercion, intimidation, threats, and interference, as per 42 U.S.C. §12203(b), in any act or deed of the Court. Shore also stated that Ms. Mezzano will, at all times henceforth, be exercising her rights under the ADA while Case No. DV19-01564 in the Family Division of the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe continues, or in any other Court proceeding or ancillary proceeding related to any Court matter;

• Ms. Mezzano needs the Court to allow extra time to process and complete tasks for the purpose of disability mitigation; and

• As a qualified individual who is authorized under 42 U.S.C. §12203(b) and 28 C.F.R. §35.134(b) to aid and encourage Ms. Mezzano in the exercise and enjoyment of her rights under the ADA, the undersigned Advocate will also need the reasonable modification of being allowed to record all interactions with the Court, including without limitation, hearings, proceedings, calls, or other communications or interactions for disability mitigation.

(Id. at 5-6).

On January 12, 2023, Lerud replied by email acknowledging she had received the letter and informing Shore that he had engaged in an improper ex parte communication to the court by also sending the letter to Judge Robb.

On January 13, 2023, former Assistant Clerk of Court William Wright emailed Shore and Mezzano stating that he would be the primary point of contact for Mezzano's ADA request and cautioned Shore about ex parte communications with Judge Robb. (Id. at Ex. B). Wright also stated that if “[Shore] or Ms. Mezzano would like to make any official filings before the Court, that you should certainly feel free to make those filing[s].” (Id. at Ex. C).

On January 30, 2023, Wright emailed Shore and Mezzano stating that the requests could not be accommodated by Court Administration because they sought to alter the court proceedings, and therefore needed to be decided by Judge Robb. (Id. at 11). Wright further stated that: “[m]y understanding is that Ms. Mezzano is currently represented by counsel in this matter. The requests that you have made should be made by her counsel and filed with the Court to make appropriate rulings and determinations.” (Id. at 11-12).

On March 13, 2023, a settlement conference was held in the divorce proceedings. (Id. at 13-18). Judge Robb questioned Mezzano on why she did not file a Settlement Conference Statement. (Id.). Mezzano stated that she did not have ADA access to the court and wanted her ADA advocate to be present. (Id.). Judge Robb informed her that she needed to file a motion with the Court and not send in ex parte requests, and that the settlement conference would proceed. (Id.).

On April 4, 2023, Judge Robb sent an email to Shore and Mezzano along with Court Administration that stated:

“As I have said, multiple times, Ms. Mezzano needs to make a formal filing with the Court in order for me to take action. The filing can be sealed, and subject to in camera review, but I cannot act in a substantive way without a formal request. Moreover, Ms. Mezzano requested, and I GRANTED her request to have her ADA advocate present with her in Court. He was not present, despite her request, at the last hearing.”

(Id. at Ex. E.).

On April 14, 2023, Judge Robb issued an Order Regarding Pre-Trial Procedure for the April 17, 2023 divorce trial which stated in relevant part that: “Ms. Mezzano may have a support person of her choosing present at trial as broadly contemplated by NRS 125.080.” (Id. at 20-26 & Ex. F).

On April 17, 2023, Assistant Clerk of Court Emily Reed sent Shore an email which stated that: “Last week, Judge Robb approved your virtual appearance as Ms. Mezzano's advocate. The trial is currently on hold and my understanding is that Ms. Mezzano has been trying to reach you. I am reaching out to confirm your availability for this afternoon and Wednesday all day. ...