Sternberg v. Hendrickson

Background

Michael C. Sternberg brought claims against the State Bar Defendants, including the Chair of the California State Bar Board of Trustees, current and former State Bar prosecutors and investigators, and an assistant presiding arbitrator. He alleged that they violated federal rights by refusing to accept or investigate evidence of professional misconduct, misleading him about investigations, and blocking access to fee arbitration. He also alleged violations of California law. Sternberg proceeded without a lawyer and purported to sue on behalf of himself and his two children, E.W. and N.W. The opinion notes that a separate order determined he could not proceed on behalf of the children.

The motion to dismiss

The State Bar Defendants moved to dismiss. The court construed the complaint as alleging actions taken in the defendants’ official capacities because the alleged conduct involved their State Bar roles, including handling misconduct complaints, investigating, prosecuting, and administering arbitration. The court relied on the allegations in the complaint rather than Sternberg’s contrary description in his opposition.

The court held that the State Bar Defendants were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. That doctrine generally protects states and state entities, including officials sued in their official capacities, from suits in federal court. The court also rejected Sternberg’s argument that his request for an injunction avoided that protection. It found that his requested order—requiring the defendants to produce a report about evidence of past constitutional and professional misconduct—addressed alleged past harms rather than preventing future violations of federal law.

Ruling

Because the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims against the State Bar Defendants, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear those claims. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted the State Bar Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court denied leave to amend because the jurisdictional issue warranted dismissal. It did not reach the defendants’ remaining grounds for dismissal. The order does not state that the motion was granted as to any defendants other than the State Bar Defendants.