Flinders v. State Bar of California

Background

Matthew Flinders, who represented himself, sued the State Bar of California under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. He alleged that the California bar examinations he took in July 2019 and February 2020 were administered and scored in a way that disproportionately harmed applicants over 40. He also challenged later licensing programs that, according to his complaint, favored younger applicants. Flinders sought an injunction, back pay and benefits, emotional-distress and punitive damages, fees, costs, and interest.

The State Bar moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which challenges a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It argued that the Eleventh Amendment protected it from suit in federal court, that Flinders had not petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the refusal to certify him for admission, that his claims were barred by res judicata, and that he had never had an employment relationship with the State Bar.

Jurisdictional ruling

The court granted the Rule 12(b)(1) motion and did not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. It explained that, under California law, the California Supreme Court—not the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners—has the final authority to grant or deny admission to the bar. The Committee’s action is only a recommendation until the California Supreme Court reviews it. Ninth Circuit decisions state that an applicant must petition that court for review, and that even an assertedly futile petition does not excuse the failure to do so.

The court rejected Flinders’s arguments that the review process was optional, that a position statement submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made review unnecessary, and that his lawsuit was merely a general challenge to bar-admission rules. The court concluded that his claims were based on the same reasons he challenged the denial of his particular admission application. Because he had not petitioned the California Supreme Court, the court concluded that he had not yet suffered a deprivation of a federally protected right and that there was no case or controversy for the federal court to decide.

The court also stated that, even assuming the Eleventh Amendment did not apply, the failure to petition the California Supreme Court independently deprived the court of jurisdiction. Because federal jurisdiction was lacking, the court dismissed the related state-law claims as well. It found that no additional facts could cure the jurisdictional defect and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. In its conclusion, the court granted the State Bar’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and closed the case.