`
`No. 19-291
`================================================================================================================
`
`In The
`Supreme Court of the United States
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`ANNE BLOCK,
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Ninth Circuit
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`KING COUNTY’S AND DEPUTY COBLANTZ’S
`BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`GEOFFREY M. GRINDELAND*
`NICOLE C. CARSLEY
`SEAMARK LAW GROUP PLLC
`400 Winslow Way E, Ste 230
`Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
`(206) 502-2511
`geoff@seamarklaw.com
`nikki@seamarklaw.com
`*Counsel of Record
`
`Counsel for Respondents
` King County and
` Deputy Coblantz
`
`================================================================================================================
`COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964
`WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`
`1. Whether judges who are members of a state bar
`association may hear a case against the bar asso-
`ciation, because mere membership in the bar asso-
`ciation is not the type of interest that would
`reasonably call into question the judges’ impar-
`tiality.
`
`2. Whether Ms. Block’s retaliation claim against
`King County and Deputy Coblantz was properly
`dismissed, because she failed to plead sufficient
`facts to state a plausible claim against them.
`
`3. Whether Ms. Block’s petition for a writ of certio-
`rari is untimely, because it was neither dated nor
`served until two months after the 90-day deadline.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Questions Presented ...............................................
`i
`Table of Contents ....................................................
`ii
`Table of Authorities ................................................
`iii
`Introduction ............................................................
`1
`Decisions Below ......................................................
`1
`Jurisdiction .............................................................
`2
`Statement of the Case ............................................
`2
`The Petition Should Be Denied ..............................
`3
`
`I. Membership in a bar association does not
`require judges to recuse themselves from
`hearing a case involving the bar associa-
`tion, because mere membership does not
`reasonably call into question the judges’ im-
`partiality ......................................................
` II. Ms. Block’s retaliation claim against King
`County and Deputy Coblantz was properly
`dismissed, because she failed to plead suffi-
`cient facts to state a plausible claim against
`them ..............................................................
` III. Ms. Block’s petition for a writ of certiorari is
`untimely, because it was neither dated nor
`served until nearly two months after the 90-
`day deadline .................................................
`Conclusion ...............................................................
`
`
`7
`8
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`iii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................... 6
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
`(2007) ......................................................................... 6
`Denardo v. Anchorage, 974 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir.
`1992) .......................................................................... 4
`Hu v. American Bar Ass’n, 334 Fed. Appx. 17 (7th
`Cir. 2009) ................................................................... 4
`Lawrence v. Chabot, 182 Fed. Appx. 442 (6th Cir.
`2006) .......................................................................... 4
`N.L.R.B. v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 340 U.S. 498
`(1951) ......................................................................... 7
`Plechner v. Widener College, Inc., 569 F.2d 1250
`(3d Cir. 1977) ............................................................. 4
`Riss v. Angel, 934 P.2d 669 (Wash. 1997) ..................... 5
`United States v. Johnston, 268 U.S. 220 (1925) ........... 3
`
`STATUTES
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ........................................................ 2
`28 U.S.C. § 455(a) .......................................................... 4
`
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................... 3
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ..................................................... 5
`
`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`Sup. Ct. R. 10 ................................................................ 3
`Sup. Ct. R. 12.3 ............................................................. 7
`Sup. Ct. R. 13 ................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court of Appeals and the District Court cor-
`rectly decided that judges need not recuse themselves
`from a case involving a state bar association of which
`they are members, because mere membership in a bar
`association does not reasonably call into question a
`judge’s impartiality.
`
`Both courts also properly concluded that Peti-
`
`tioner Anne Block had not pleaded facts sufficient to
`state a plausible retaliation claim against King County
`or Deputy Coblantz.
`
`Neither of these decisions, which involved applica-
`
`tion of specific facts to well-settled law, merit review by
`this Court.
`
`Additionally, Ms. Block’s petition should be denied
`
`on the basis that it is untimely.
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`DECISIONS BELOW
`
`The Appendix submitted by Ms. Block is incom-
`plete. The District Court’s six orders denying her mo-
`tions to disqualify District Court judges may be found
`at Block v. Washington State Bar Ass’n, No. 2:15-cv-
`02018-RSM, ECF Nos. 25, 34, 36, 68, 134, and 151.
`
`The District Court’s order dismissing Ms. Block’s
`
`retaliation claim against King County and Deputy
`Coblantz may be found at Block v. Washington State
`Bar Ass’n, No. 2:15-cv-02018-RSM, ECF No. 122.
`
`
`
`2
`
`The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ order affirm-
`
`ing the District Court on both issues is available at
`Block v. Washington State Bar Ass’n, 761 Fed. Appx.
`729 (9th Cir. 2019).
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`The Court of Appeals entered judgment on Febru-
`ary 11, 2019. Then on April 2, 2019, the Court of Ap-
`peals denied Ms. Block’s petition for rehearing.
`
`If Ms. Block’s petition had been timely filed and
`
`served, this Court would have jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
` Ms. Block sued the Washington State Bar Associ-
`ation and more than 50 other governmental entities
`and private individuals she alleged were part of a
`widespread conspiracy to retaliate against her. (See
`Block, ECF No. 122 at 2; Block, ECF No. 134 at 1.)
`
` Ms. Block then moved to disqualify all judges in
`the Western District of Washington, arguing they were
`biased because they were members of the bar associa-
`tion. (See Block, ECF No. 25 at 1.) Both District Court
`judges who considered this issue concluded mere mem-
`bership in the bar association was not disqualifying,
`because it did not reasonably call into question the
`judges’ impartiality. (See Block, ECF No. 151 at 1.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`King County and Deputy Coblantz moved to dis-
`
`miss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on
`the grounds that Ms. Block’s Amended Complaint con-
`tained only conclusory and speculative allegations
`against them. (See Block, ECF No. 122 at 10–11.) The
`Amended Complaint did not connect King County or
`Deputy Coblantz to any retaliatory act and did not al-
`lege any facts from which it could be inferred that King
`County or Deputy Coblantz had a retaliatory motive.
`(See id. at 12–14.) The District Court dismissed Ms.
`Block’s retaliation claim against King County and
`Deputy Coblantz on this basis. (Id. at 16.)
`
`In an unpublished order, the Ninth Circuit af-
`
`firmed the District Court on both issues. (Block, 761
`Fed. Appx. at 730–32.)
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED
` Ms. Block’s petition for a writ of certiorari should
`be denied, because there are no compelling reasons the
`Court should review the fact-specific decisions in this
`case. See Sup. Ct. R. 10. On the contrary, the Ninth Cir-
`cuit’s unpublished order is in harmony with decisions
`of this Court and other Circuits. And this Court does
`not grant certiorari merely “to review evidence and dis-
`cuss specific facts.” United States v. Johnston, 268 U.S.
`220, 227 (1925).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`I. Membership in a bar association does not re-
`quire judges to recuse themselves from hear-
`ing a case involving the bar association,
`because mere membership does not reasona-
`bly call into question the judges’ impartiality.
`
`Judges should recuse themselves when they have
`a personal interest in a matter or when the judge’s “im-
`partiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C.
`§ 455(a). For more than forty years, however, every fed-
`eral circuit to consider the issue has held that mem-
`bership in a bar association is not the type of interest
`that would require judges to recuse themselves from
`hearing a case involving the bar association. See Hu v.
`Am. Bar Ass’n, 334 Fed. Appx. 17, 19 (7th Cir. 2009) (“a
`judge’s membership in a bar association . . . does not
`create the type of relationship that would cause us to
`doubt his ability to preside impartially over a case in
`which the bar association is a party”); Lawrence v.
`Chabot, 182 Fed. Appx. 442, 449 (6th Cir. 2006) (“after
`more than thirty years from the date of the disqualifi-
`cation statute’s enactment, no case, at least of which
`we are aware, has held that judges who are members
`of a state bar may not hear cases concerning that state
`bar”); Denardo v. Anchorage, 974 F.2d 1200, 1201 (9th
`Cir. 1992) (“The fact that a plaintiff sues a bar associ-
`ation does not require recusal of judges who are mem-
`bers of that bar association.”); Plechner v. Widener
`Coll., Inc., 569 F.2d 1250, 1262 (3d Cir. 1977) (“mem-
`bership in the American Bar Association is not a finan-
`cial interest which requires that a judge disqualify
`himself where the ABA is a party”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`Consistent with this well-settled rule, the Ninth
`
`Circuit and the District Court correctly decided that
`mere membership in the Washington State Bar Asso-
`ciation did not reasonably call into question the impar-
`tiality of judges presiding over this action.
`
` Ms. Block’s reliance on Riss v. Angel, 934 P.2d 669
`(Wash. 1997), is misplaced. That was a state-court de-
`cision that limited joint-and-several liability for a de-
`cision by an unincorporated homeowners’ association
`“to those members who violated the covenants by par-
`ticipating in or ratifying the unreasonable, arbitrary
`decision.” Id. at 683. The case has nothing to do with
`potential liability of members of a bar association or
`recusal of judges.
`
`Therefore, the Ninth Circuit correctly affirmed the
`
`District Court judges’ decisions not to recuse them-
`selves. And the lower courts’ application of these spe-
`cific facts to well-settled law does not merit review by
`this Court.
`
`
`II. Ms. Block’s retaliation claim against King
`County and Deputy Coblantz was properly
`dismissed, because she failed to plead suffi-
`cient facts to state a plausible claim against
`them.
`
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that
`a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the
`claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint does not satisfy this
`standard if it contains only “labels and conclusions” or
`
`
`
`6
`
`a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
`action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In-
`stead, to survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint
`must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
`true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
`face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`544, 570 (2007)).
`
`A claim has facial plausibility “when the plaintiff
`
`pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
`reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
`the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This
`requires more than a “sheer possibility” that the de-
`fendant is liable, and the plausibility standard is not
`satisfied by pleading facts that are “merely consistent
`with” the defendant’s liability. Id.
`
`A court should apply a two-step approach when
`
`evaluating whether claims have been adequately
`pleaded. Id. at 679. First, the court should identify and
`disregard all legal conclusions, as they are not entitled
`to an assumption of truth. Id. Second, the court should
`determine whether the factual allegations, which must
`be assumed to be true, “plausibly give rise to an enti-
`tlement to relief.” Id.
`
`In this case, the District Court and the Ninth Circuit
`
`correctly decided that Ms. Block’s Amended Complaint
`alleged no facts from which it could be reasonably
`inferred that King County, Deputy Coblantz, or any
`other defendant retaliated against her. Indeed, Ms.
`Block conceded that her retaliation claim against King
`
`
`
`7
`
`County was insufficiently pleaded. (See Block, ECF No.
`122 at 16.)
`
`Furthermore, a determination that a plaintiff
`
`failed to allege sufficient facts to meet the pleading
`standard is not generally the type of issue that merits
`review by this Court. See N.L.R.B. v. Pittsburgh S.S.
`Co., 340 U.S. 498, 503 (1951) (“This is not the place to
`review a conflict of evidence nor to reverse a Court of
`Appeals because were we in its place we would find the
`record tilting one way rather than the other, though
`fair-minded judges could find it tilting either way.”).
`
`
`III. Ms. Block’s petition for a writ of certiorari
`is untimely, because it was neither dated
`nor served until nearly two months after the
`90-day deadline.
`
`A petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed
`within 90 days from either entry of judgment or denial
`of a petition for rehearing. See Sup. Ct. R. 13. The peti-
`tion must be accompanied by proof of service, and the
`petitioner must notify the other parties “promptly” of
`the filing. Sup. Ct. R. 12.3.
`
` Ms. Block’s motion for rehearing was denied by the
`Court of Appeals on April 2, 2019. (Pet. App. at 14–15.)
`So her petition was due by July 1.
`
`Although the docket indicates Ms. Block’s petition
`
`was filed on July 1, it is unclear what document was
`received by the Court that day, because the petition is
`actually dated August 30. Moreover, King County and
`
`
`
`8
`
`Deputy Coblantz were not served with a copy of the
`petition or otherwise informed of the filing until Sep-
`tember 4.
`
`Because Ms. Block’s petition was neither dated nor
`
`served until nearly two months after the 90-day dead-
`line, it is untimely. This is an additional reason the pe-
`tition should be denied.
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`This case was correctly decided by application of
`specific facts to well-settled law, and there are no com-
`pelling reasons the Court should grant review. Addi-
`tionally, Ms. Block’s petition was not timely. For each
`of these independent reasons, the Court should deny
`Ms. Block’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`GEOFFREY M. GRINDELAND*
`NICOLE C. CARSLEY
`SEAMARK LAW GROUP PLLC
`400 Winslow Way E, Ste 230
`Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
`(206) 502-2511
`geoff@seamarklaw.com
`nikki@seamarklaw.com
`*Counsel of Record
`Counsel for Respondents
` King County and
` Deputy Coblantz
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
