Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico

• Decision Date: 21 August 1987
• Docket Number: 82-1514(TR) and 82-1532(TR).,Civ. No. 82-1459(TR),82-1513(TR)
• Citation: 670 F. Supp. 1098
• Parties: Robert E. SCHNEIDER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLEGIO DE ABOGADOS DE PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

670 F. Supp. 1098

Robert E. SCHNEIDER, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLEGIO DE ABOGADOS DE PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants.

Civ. Nos. 82-1459(TR), 82-1513(TR), 82-1514(TR) and 82-1532(TR).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

August 21, 1987.

Pedro A. del Valle Ferrer, Federal Litigation Div., Dept. of Justice, San Juan, P.R., for Secretaries of Justice and Treasury.

Harry Anduze Montaňo, Santurce, P.R., for Colegio and Fundación de Abogados.

Miriam Naveira de Rodón, Santurce, P.R., José Julián Alvarez González, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, P.R., and Salvador Antonetti, Jay García Gregory, San Juan, P.R., for Justices of Supreme Court.

OPINION AND ORDER

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, Sitting by Designation.

These cases are again before this court after the period of abstention ordered by the First Circuit. See Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 565 F.Supp. 963 (D.P.R.), stay of judgment denied, 572 F.Supp. 957 (D.P.R.1983), vacated, 742 F.2d 32, 44 (1st Cir.1984) (ordering this court to abstain until "the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has finally determined what remedy to provide or sooner in the unlikely event of some unusual delay"). The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has issued its final rule governing dissenters' rights in Puerto Rico's integrated bar. See Colegio de Abogados v. Schneider, 86 J.T.S. 60 (June 26, 1986). Accordingly, this court is poised to exercise its jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal constitutional challenges to Puerto Rico's integrated bar and the new dissenters' rights rule. The defendant Colegio, however, has filed a motion to dismiss, to which the court must first respond.

Background

Rather than repeat in detail the long procedural history of this case and the history of the mandatory bar association in Puerto Rico, this opinion will merely refer to the numerous published opinions that relate to this case. This general dispute first began when the Colegio brought disbarment proceedings against Robert E. Schneider, Héctor Ricardo Ramos Díaz, Jorge F. Romany, and other lawyers who had not paid their mandatory dues to the Colegio. All the attorneys except Schneider and Ramos subsequently paid their dues and were no longer subject to disbarment. Schneider and Ramos were then the subject of an opinion of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico directing them to pay their dues or be disbarred. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico v. Schneider, 112 D.P.R. 540 (1982) (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Schneider-Ramos opinion).

The 1982 Schneider-Ramos opinion determined the parties' current rights and obligations under the Puerto Rico integrated bar statute and the Puerto Rico constitution. In addition, the 1982 Schneider-Ramos opinion announced an impending rulemaking proceeding to reform the Colegio to protect the rights of dissenting members.

Schneider and Ramos refused to pay, notwithstanding the pending rulemaking, and were disbarred. They, along with the other plaintiffs (who had not been the subject of the 1982 Schneider-Ramos decision), then brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Puerto Rico's integrated bar violates their federal constitutional rights. This court dismissed a number of their claims and largely reduced the case to one seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from their prospective obligation to pay dues and belong to the Colegio. See Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados, 546 F.Supp. 1251 (D.P.R.), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom., In re Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 695 F.2d 17 (1st Cir.1982). This court then decided the case on the merits, a decision that was regarded as improvident by the First Circuit in light of the pending rulemaking proceeding in the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. See Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados, 565 F.Supp. 963 (D.P.R.1983), vacated sub nom., Romany v. Colegio de Abogados, 742 F.2d 32 (1st Cir.1984).

Now that the rulemaking is completed and the case is back before this court, the Colegio presents three arguments for dismissal. The Colegio suggests, first, that this court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiffs are seeking a review of a decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. The Bar then argues that, even if this court has jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Finally, they claim that plaintiffs have not presented a case or controversy.

I. Jurisdiction

It has long been settled that the federal district courts do not sit in review of state court decisions, even on questions of federal law; the only appeal from a state supreme court decision is to the Supreme Court of the United States. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The Colegio contends that this case falls within Rooker's prohibition, because plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico's Schneider-Ramos decision.

This court considered essentially this same issue when this case was first brought in 1982. See Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 546 F.Supp. at 1268. At that time the court wrote:

As to prospective enforcement, the 1982 Schneider-Ramos decision only serves as a definite interpretation of a state statute by the highest court of Puerto Rico. Thus the consideration by this Court of the issues raised by the prospective enforcement of Law No. 43 cannot be interpreted as an appeal from a state court opinion, but is rather a new federal case in which the state court's interpretation serves to establish what is the substantive state law that is applicable.

Id. This ruling, which the defendants did not challenge in their earlier appeal, stands. See Romany v. Colegio, 742 F.2d at 37 n. 6; see generally 1B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.4041 (discussing law of the case); 18 Wright & Miller Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478 (1981). Since that time, however, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified its Rooker doctrine in D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), and the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico issued a second opinion in Schneider-Ramos in 1986. Although neither of these developments has changed the jurisdiction of this court over this case, they merit careful attention.

In review, the 1982 Schneider-Ramos opinion held that Puerto Rico's mandatory bar law did not violate free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the Puerto Rico constitution, and that Schneider and Ramos must pay their dues or be disbarred. The court also directed the Colegio to develop a method, following the principles provided by the United States Supreme Court in cases such as Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), to make sure that the dues of dissenting members such as Schneider and Ramos are not applied to ideological activities. 112 D.P.R. at 550, 556-57. See also Romany, 742 F.2d at 35-37. Schneider and Ramos continued to refuse to pay dues and were disbarred.

The Colegio submitted a proposed "remedy" which the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico did not adopt. Instead, the court appointed a special master to conduct evidentiary hearings to provide a basis for the promulgation of its own "remedy." The court issued a temporary "remedy" on November 13, 1984, and later reinstated Schneider and Ramos, who had indicated they would pay dues under the temporary "remedy." The Special Master held the hearings and submitted a report. The Supreme Court then announced in the 1986 Schneider-Ramos opinion its, apparently final, "remedy," which establishes an Abood-like rebate procedure.

Before going further, it is important to note what the plaintiffs challenge and what they do not challenge. They do not challenge the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico's individual treatment of either Schneider or Ramos, but rather challenge generally the mandatory bar requirement as it stands after the 1986 "remedy." Schneider and Ramos "do not question that the mandatory bar statute and `remedy' apply in their case, but rather contend that such remedy is unconstitutional in all cases." Piper v. Supreme Court of N.H., 723 F.2d 110, 118 n. 1 (1st Cir.1983) (en banc) (Campbell, C.J., and Breyer, J., dissenting), aff'd, 470 U.S. 274, 105 S.Ct. 1272, 84 L.Ed.2d 205 (1983).

This distinction corresponds to the Supreme Court's distinction in Feldman between "challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings" and "general challenges to state bar rules, promulgated by state courts in non-judicial proceeding." 460 U.S. at 486. Challenges to the former may only be raised in an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, while challenges to the latter may be raised in federal district court in the same manner as challenges to any state statute or regulation. Id.

The key Feldman concepts relevant here are that of the "judicial proceeding" and the "particular case." If the 1986 "remedy" is the result of a "judicial proceeding" resolving a "particular case," then the federal district courts lack jurisdiction to consider whether it meets federal law requirements.¹ But if the 1986 "remedy" is a general rule, promulgated by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico in its administrative or legislative capacity as regulator of the attorneys who practice before its courts, then the federal district courts have jurisdiction to consider its constitutionality.

The twist here is that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico promulgated a new rule as a purported "remedy" to a "particular case," the disbarment action brought against two lawyers who refused to pay dues. In the words of Justice Holmes, however, the determination whether a particular proceeding is judicial or nonjudicial "depends not upon the character of the body but upon the character of the proceedings." Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 226, 29 S.Ct. 67, 69, 53 L.Ed. 150 (1908); see also Lathrop v. Donahue, 367 U.S. 820, 824...