Uberti v. Gorin

Background

George Uberti sued Susan Gorin, David Rabbitt, Shirlee Zane, James Gore, Lynda Hopkins, and Erick Roeser. The complaint concerned Sonoma County’s 2005 consolidation of the County Auditor-Controller and County Treasurer-Tax Collector into the Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector. The opinion states that California Government Code Section 24304.2 expressly authorized this consolidation.

Uberti had previously brought related actions based on the same events. In an earlier case, the court dismissed his complaint with prejudice, finding that he lacked standing because he had not alleged a concrete and particularized injury. The court also ruled that the consolidation was an ordinary government operation and therefore did not violate the Sherman Act. The court of appeals later summarily affirmed that result. A later motion seeking a new trial was also denied.

Claims and analysis

Uberti’s latest complaint continued to characterize the consolidated office as a monopoly or combination restraining a market in violation of the Sherman Act. He identified the alleged market as Sonoma County’s public-benefits system and argued that the County’s auditing practices caused improper termination or denial of his benefits.

The court explained that the Sherman Act concerns conduct affecting trade or commerce and is directed toward commercial competition. Government operations, the court stated, are not commercial or competitive activities, and public benefits are not trade or commerce. The court also explained that the state-policy immunity analysis discussed by Uberti did not apply because the alleged activity was not within the Sherman Act’s coverage in the first place. In any event, California law specifically authorized the consolidation.

The court separately examined the materials Uberti attached concerning auditing standards and electronic-benefit-transfer cards. An independent audit report stated that the County complied in all material respects with the relevant requirements for its major federal programs, including its welfare programs. The report identified a failure to maintain an electronic-benefit-transfer system in conformity with one federal regulation, but the County corrected that issue in January 2018. Notices concerning Uberti’s benefits attributed the terminations or denials to missing or incomplete documentation and a missed appointment. The court concluded that these materials did not support Uberti’s claim that the consolidation caused the benefit decisions.

The opinion also states that Uberti did not properly serve the latest complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered final judgment in favor of the defendants against Uberti. It also ordered Uberti to show cause—meaning to explain—why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order restricting future filings.