Roshan v. Lawrence

Background

Peyman Roshan sued the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, George Cardona, and Melanie J. Lawrence. He challenged the State Bar’s rules of procedure and internal rules and policies as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He brought claims for himself and two proposed classes of people involved in attorney-discipline proceedings.

On May 23, 2023, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court ruled that the doctrine known as Rooker-Feldman barred claims seeking to overturn Roshan’s own prior disciplinary order. It also ruled that Roshan lacked standing for his remaining claims, but granted him leave to amend solely to allege additional facts showing a reasonable likelihood that he would face future disciplinary proceedings under the challenged rules and policies.

Motion and Analysis

Roshan moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the May 23 order. He argued that the court had incorrectly applied Rooker-Feldman and that newly discovered evidence about the State Bar’s alleged failure to provide exculpatory evidence justified allowing him to amend his complaint.

The court held that Rule 60(b) applies only to a final judgment, order, or proceeding. An order that grants leave to amend is interlocutory, meaning temporary or not a final resolution of the dispute. Because the May 23 order allowed Roshan to amend his complaint, it was not final and could not be challenged through Rule 60(b). The court rejected Roshan’s arguments that the order should nevertheless be treated as final. It also explained that an interlocutory order may generally be challenged in an appeal from the eventual final judgment.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Roshan’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The order did not reach the merits of Roshan’s constitutional challenges or change the prior dismissal order.