Herterich v. Wiss

Background

Hans Herbert Bartsch died on October 25, 2008, leaving a will stating that he had no children. Herterich filed a petition in California probate court claiming that he was Bartsch’s omitted child and was entitled to a share of the estate. After discovery, the probate court denied the petition on December 30, 2011, finding that Herterich was not a pretermitted child under California Probate Code § 21622. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Herterich later pursued reconsideration and related proceedings, but the California courts ruled against him.

Herterich then sued the judicial officers who had ruled against him: Superior Court Judge Mary E. Wiss; California Court of Appeal justices Robert L. Dondero, Sandra L. Margulies, and Diana Becton; and California Supreme Court justices Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Carol Ann Corrigan, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Goodwin Hon Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, and Leondra Reid Kruger. He alleged that the defendants’ rulings violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. He sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.

Motion to dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority to hear the case. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Eleventh Amendment, that Herterich lacked standing, that the judges had absolute judicial immunity, that the claims were untimely, and that the complaint did not plausibly allege civil-rights violations.

Rooker-Feldman ruling

The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the lawsuit. That doctrine prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate courts reviewing state-court judgments. The court explained that Herterich was a losing state-court party complaining about injuries caused by state-court rulings and seeking relief that would require reversing or rejecting those rulings.

The court found that Herterich’s requested relief—including an alternative result on his petition and compensation for the claimed property interest in the estate—could not be granted without effectively undoing the state courts’ decisions. His constitutional claims therefore were inseparably connected to those decisions, and the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over them.

Other grounds and disposition

The court also stated that other grounds supported dismissal. It explained that judges are immune from liability for damages arising from decisions made in their judicial functions. It further noted that the civil-rights claims were subject to a two-year limitations period. The court said it was touching on these additional grounds but was dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the case with prejudice. The opinion does not separately state distinct dispositions for each individual claim beyond that case-wide disposition.