Roshan v. Lawrence
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-01235
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Roshan v. Lawrence, Judge Tigar denied Roshan’s request for an indicative ruling while his appeal remained pending.
Peyman Roshan’s request for an indicative ruling was denied; the appeal of the earlier dismissal and related order remained pending before the Ninth Circuit.
What happened
Roshan v. Lawrence is a closed case in which Peyman Roshan challenged State Bar rules and policies as unconstitutional and sought court orders against George Cardona and Melanie J. Lawrence.
After the court dismissed his case based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Roshan appealed and asked the court to say it would grant his request to undo the judgment if the appeals court sent the matter back. He also argued that a recent Supreme Court decision showed the earlier ruling was wrong.
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the motion. The court said an indicative ruling would not promote efficiency or fairness because the appeals court could consider the newly cited decision and was already addressing the same issue.
The detailed version
- Roshan v. Lawrence · No. 4:21-cv-01235
- Jon Tigar
- July 2, 2025
Background
This closed case concerns Peyman Roshan’s challenge to the State Bar Rules of Procedure and the State Bar’s internal rules and policies. Roshan alleged that the rules violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, among other claims, and sought injunctive and declaratory relief against George Cardona, the current Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, and Melanie J. Lawrence, his predecessor.
Roshan filed a fourth amended complaint. The court later granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, reiterating that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the court from hearing Roshan’s case. Rooker-Feldman is a rule limiting federal district courts from reviewing certain state-court judgments. Roshan then moved to alter the judgment and appealed both the dismissal order and the order denying that motion. The appeal remained pending before the Ninth Circuit.
Motion for an Indicative Ruling
Because the appeal was pending, Roshan asked the court for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. He sought a statement that the court would grant his motion under Rule 60(b) to obtain relief from the judgment if the Ninth Circuit returned the case, or that the Rule 60(b) motion raised a substantial issue. Roshan argued that the court had applied Rooker-Feldman incorrectly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. Reed.
Rule 62.1 allows a district court faced with a motion it cannot decide because of a pending appeal to defer consideration, deny the motion, or state that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue if the appeals court sends the matter back.
Court’s Reasoning
The court concluded that Roshan’s request lacked merit and denied his motions under Rule 62.1. It explained that an indicative ruling is intended to help the district court and appeals court handle a post-judgment motion efficiently and fairly. The court noted that Roshan was not presenting newly discovered evidence or another issue on which the district court would be better positioned than the Ninth Circuit. Instead, he asked the district court to reconsider the same Rooker-Feldman question involved in his pending appeal.
The court concluded that issuing an indicative ruling could delay the proceedings before the Ninth Circuit, which could consider the newly cited Supreme Court decision in the first instance.
Disposition
The court denied Roshan’s motion for an indicative ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.