Sanai v. Cardona

Background

Cyrus Sanai sued George Cardona, identified as the State Bar Chief Trial Counsel, and Leah Wilson, identified as the State Bar Executive Director. Sanai sought declaratory and injunctive relief after receiving a letter stating that the State Bar would initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. A notice of disciplinary charges was filed on February 23, 2023, beginning a pending attorney-discipline proceeding.

Before that notice was filed, Sanai asked the court for a temporary restraining order and an order requiring the defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The court denied that request on February 22, 2023. Sanai appealed that order. He then filed the motion addressed in this opinion, asking the court to stop actions advancing the disciplinary matters while his appeal was pending.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard for an injunction pending appeal, which is similar to the standard for a preliminary injunction. Sanai had to make an initial showing that he was likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer harm that could not be repaired without an injunction, that the balance of hardships favored him, and that an injunction served the public interest. An alternative test could apply if there were serious questions about the merits and the hardship balance strongly favored Sanai, while the other requirements were also met.

Discussion

The court concluded that Sanai was unlikely to succeed on appeal because the doctrine known as Younger abstention applied. Younger abstention generally requires a federal court to avoid interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings when the proceedings involve important state interests and provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.

The court found that California attorney-discipline proceedings are judicial proceedings for this purpose. It also found that the State Bar proceeding was ongoing and that it began before the federal case had reached a substantive stage. The court noted that denying a temporary restraining order does not amount to a proceeding of substance on the merits, and that it had not otherwise issued a substantive order or evaluated the sufficiency of the pleadings.

The court further found that attorney discipline implicates important state interests and that Sanai could raise his federal constitutional claims in the discipline proceeding and seek judicial review. The fact that Sanai challenged the constitutionality of the discipline system itself did not eliminate the adequate opportunity to present those claims.

The court considered exceptions to Younger abstention for bad-faith or harassing state proceedings and other extraordinary circumstances. It concluded that Sanai’s allegations of widespread corruption related to Tom Girardi and his arguments that aspects of California’s discipline system were unconstitutional did not establish such circumstances.

Because Sanai had not made the required showing of likely success or raised serious questions supporting relief, the court did not consider the remaining injunction factors.

Disposition

The court concluded that Sanai had not shown a sufficient basis for a temporary restraining order or for an order to show cause concerning an injunction pending appeal. Sanai’s motion was denied.