Prologue — JMYK, P. C. v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

05-49 9AUG 11 2009

No. OFFICE OF I if C ERK

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

IMYK, P.C., A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL

CORPORATION; JOHN M. KEEFE, INDIVIDUALLY,

PETITIONERS

Vv.

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

ee

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JOHN M. KEEFE

Counsel of Record

LAW OFFICES, JMYK, P.C.

1120 Fremont Avenue

South Pasadena, CA 91030

(626) 441-3263

Counsel for Petitioners

CURRY & TAYLOR @ WASH O.C. ¢ (202) 223-2160 * USSCINFO.COM

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the Due Process Clause of the United

States Constitution prevent a federal court from

exercising personal jurisdiction over civil proceedings

involving a lawyer's suspension pursuant to the

standards of Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden State

Bar Ass'n., 457 U.S. 423 (1982), on the grounds that the

punishing sanction occurred in another state, where the

requirements of a state's long-arm statute are met, and

when the relationship to the forum makes the exercise

of personal jurisdiction reasonable?

2. Is venue in an action against a Bar Association

under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for a suspension imposed

in alleged violation of the Middlesex standards present

in a federal district outside the state where the

prosecution and the disciplinary sanctions occurred,

when activities underlying the claims have occurred in

the forum district, and where harm in the forum giving

rise to the claims has occurred?

‘i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The following list identifies all parties before the

Court of Appeals: JMYK, P.C., a California

Professional Corporation, Jonn M. Keefe, and the

Washington State Bar Association.

As provided by Rule 29.6 of the Rules of this

Court, petitioners state the following: JMYK, P.C., isa

California Professional Corporation, and has no parent,

subsidiary or publicly held corporations or companies

owning 10% or more of the corporation’s stock.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED..........c0cesseeeereeees sepiivancssenmemmmenvanatini i

PARTIES TO THE PROCIIDING ecccevesen: socecssscevseseseessensccsvenecsonees ii

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT coccccssosccsccccccsceesssceescecrscsseseresoveseeseene ee

ee Oe IT cctipiccastncnieptesinicdecivtstinivinincigneibiitpicnabinieitba iii

I wicicintinsteinsicniintiicastionsnitiianasiiiiaat seis Vv

Se eresitcesiientnctuitienetipuiataseeentciinsendaiteiniiinbanlitiniiiasbindiiinlin 1

Fe icecterratetiatinaninninsailitacaieniiectelaistehichesshinctsigiiptanibaasiaud l

STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

SPIN eisctiscaideticebiaiaieetsleiehciieedeshi eigen atcha aces l

Se Ta CR ccciacchcrctntiiniinaseiniiciteasinpiniitinnsitiarniiaiseasss l

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION. ........cccesessseseeseeseeseees 8

I. The Petition Presents the Important

Federal Question of Whether Personal

Jurisdiction in an Action Against a Bar

Association for a Suspension In Violation

of the Standards of Middlesex Ethics

Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n., 457

U.S. 423 (1982), is Present in a Federal

Judicial District Outside the State Whe:

the Effects Giving Rise to the Claim are

Alleged to Have OCCUr red ........c:.ssscsesssssserersereeeeenees 8

A. The Conclusion that Personal

Jurisdiction is not Present in this Case

iv

is Contrary to this Court’s Decision in

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).............. 10

B. There was Sufficient Evidence of a

Violation of the Standards in

Middlesex Ethics Comm. v. Garden

State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423 (1982)

to Warrant a Determination of

Personal Jurisdiction in California ............... 15

Il. The Petition Presents the Important

Federal Question of Whether Venue in an

Action Against a Bar Association Under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is Present in a Federal

Judicial District Outside the State Where

Substantial Activities Giving Rise to the

Claim are Alleged to Have Occurred....c.cscsesseees 21

CRAIN sriciesescciscisititinsmncenissenipieihicucanansiletbetensisenebienvndiiihe 28

APPENDIX

CIRCUIT COURT OPINION (04/13/05)........ccssessssosessescsseeeeseees la

DISTRICT COURT TRANSCRIPT.....cecsccecscsososersssessocossrsovossesores 3a

SBT RIOT COURT TI CIIIO vccccscvitncsccrsssconisnsstsivatcinieabinvints lla

STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

SIT TILY Gd sscecschinusviceunidiotanammecigenintsslavcesiaticsenanmasaibiamacdinde 25a

Vv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

ASAHI METAL INDUSTRY Co. V. SUPERIOR COURT,

et Se icerticineihirnerscticiesstieniaiieitsinssiinsiaimasaniiaidltas 10, 11, 14

BAFFERT V. CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BD., 332

Be re es Be catbceviciucectecsernstniciiactintininitanniniasi 17, 20

BARRY V. BARCHI, 443 U.S, 55 (1979) ...........ccccccecrenscersenceersees 27

BATES V: C & S ADJUSTERS, INC., 980 F.2D 865 (2ND

CIR. 1902) ...-..0ccece- ae SA ee atanipaitaitiliiaitehiadeel 23, 24, 25

BURGER KING CoRrP. V. RUDZEWICZ, 471 U.S. 462

REREON R SRRSCEE SES FS eet Wee Seve ne 10, 13, 14

CALDER V. JONES, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)......ccccccsceceseeeeeees passim

CLARK V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 366 F.2D 678 (9TH

| RE aR eh Fee Ra ON ET OI 19

COTTMAN TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC. V.

MARTINO, 36 F.3D 291 (3D CIR. 1994)................ sant Cesk md 25

DOE V. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, 582 F.2D 25 (9TH

Ne RE SER HE eye Hernan SP re 7,8, 19

FIRST OF MICHIGAN CORP. V. BRAMLET, 141 F.3D

Sn CG I i 22, 23, 25

GORDY V. DAILY NEWS, L.P., 95 F.3D 829 (9TH CIR.

ERE NET ACNE SE Ree ar a Ma SER SAN 12, 15

HUFFMAN V. PURSUE, LTD., 420 U.S. 592 (1975) .............000+- 18

IN RE ALLOTTA, 109 WN.2D 787, 748 P.2D 628 (1988).............. 4

vi

INTERNATIONAL SHOE Co. V. WASHINGTON, 326

RB NR Sees Pots weer a nL 10

INTERNATIONAL UNION V. KARR, 994 F.2D 1426

Le BERGER CREE ORNS ELE SE aT

JENKINS BRICK Co. V. BRENNER, 321 F.3D 1366

(LTH CIR. 2O0B) ....-..re-srvcsecssevesonsssnrsnrserssnessseseescegeovessenecesecs 25

KEETON V. HUSTLER MAGAZINE, INC., 465 U.S. 770

| SSRs Or eS Ne nya PNRM 11,14

KING V. RUSSELL, 963 F.2D 1301 (9TH CIR. 1992)........ 8,21, 26

KUGLER V. HELFANT, 421 U.S. 117 (1975) ..........cccecccesseeseeeeee 17

LEATHERMAN V. TARRANT COUNTY NARCOTICS

INTELLIGENCE AND COORDINATION UNIT, 507

Si: SI I hits seneiinchtinednsigihnipiiinindhta einstein aiesinteminas ties 16

LEROY V. GREAT W. UNITED CoRP., 443 U.S. 173

4 RRS EAN TRE RES eae SSE on anne PRON ee De Ne MO 23, 24

MACKAY V. NESBETT, 412 F.2D 846, (9TH CIR.), CERT.

DENIED, 396 U.S. 960 (1969) ...........cccecccssressseeereeserensees 7,8,19

MIDDLESEX ETHICS COMM. V. GARDEN STATE BAR

Py gS Fg SERRE aes passim

MITCHUM V. FOSTER, 407 U.S. 225 (1972)............cccceccseseeeseeeee 18

MYERS V. BENNETT LAW OFFICES, 238 F.3D 1068

SE SEE oer Stee ane EEO ae 25

NIERBO V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308

ee 23

PECORARO V. SKY RANCH FOR BCYS, INC., 340 F.3D

es SU cccccecachtiancinesitentisinsmpiitine amearipiniiiinndinttnanmins iia 24

vii

PIT RIVE’ ““OME AND AGR. Co-Op Ass'N Vv. U.S., 30

ef} Ne RR ae eee hee 9

PULLIAM V. ALLEN, 466 U.S. 522 (1984)..........:cssssessersessessees 19

ROSENTHAL V. JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF CALIFORNIA, 910 F.2D 561 (9TH CIR. 1990)...........:0000+8 9

SCHEUER V. RHODES, 416 U.S, 232 (1974).........ccscessseerseereesers 15

SETCO ENTERPRISES CORP. V. ROBBINS, 19 F.3D

1278 (STH CIR. 1994) .......ccecccorccsscerrsesers BE SY SL COE OM, 23

SUMMIT HEALTH, LTD. V. PINHAS, 500 U.S. 322

CORED coseccivnscninpeisetnsicneiiaricssiilijumaseniiiiadivpipiniteienstbias auiiiisesteiiidlele 16

TEFAL, 8.A. V. PRODUCTS INT'L Co., 529 F.2D 495

REACT Se Be Me Cte eI S Vir nen IS 24

UFFNER V. LA REUNION FRANCAISE. S.A., 244 F.3D

BC CR FD cccncicinciteeiitiaitnaitaiaiinisinianciil iia sia 25, 26

WOODKE V. DAHM, 70 F.3D 983 (8TH CIR. 1995).........c0000e00+. 25

WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN CORP. V. WOODSON,

RE RARE rye NA Ss iar Liv ae 10, 11

YOUNGER V. HARRIS, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) ...2.......cccccceeeeee passim

FEDERAL STATUTES

I Wa aes OE ee ciheiirmcinseinissdl i ae aN ee 23

SE a GB wcctcsencivciiisiccitansiitsinibiatilatitinaniitaliiitisuiii tad ads 23

Be Ss Beep icietdiinnincntaceitiiteininiiclspianibiciiiiindicltejatdinds ta passim

Se A ease F RID sccsccccnsnciccipeertniniitiveiibeaicnsdinctapuitindnianiiar guide 8

viii

Sr ane an Tn TUTTI cndditichneesiesapliombenpieinelanabceinalcintitpiieenapi 8

i IIIT TTI os ncasesdeacceneuiesiiohinesilecemeeastiniaintinenvettionsahabtt 1

1 t ) } SSNS RS SP ce ot passim

Civil Rights Act of 1871 § 2, 17 Stat. 18 ........ccccccccesersssesseeeeees 18

Civil Rights Act of 1871 § 1, 14 Stat. 27 ..........ccccccceceseseseseseses 18

FEDERAL RULES

SN ea at Bc EID cacnckeinistea bisa leniinniaiipechiggciasiesiliilestaiicd 16

nD A Aa Sa, Mi anadndneinsetrreninnmmnnatapenvebnitetiingecremeeniabenienibvasiati 5

i SU I FS IE Ushers ce ci eteeendineninangnniiinnenneuseaiigndatbnent 5

bt AD RS see setae

eee 16, 17

CALIFORNIA STATUTES & RULES

ee ee. © oe OOO OO ss venithassuasseenebecaianapiosneds ll

WASHINGTON STATUTES & RULES

Washington Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer

Be ER 1, 13, 19

Washington Rule for Lawyer Discipline (RLD)

Washington Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.2............. |

ix

Washington Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC)

OTHER AUTHORITIES

David D. Siegel, Commentary on the 1988 and 1990

Revisions of Section 1391, Subdivision (a), Clause

(2), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391 (19938)

Report of the Fed. Courts Study Comm. 94 (Comm.

1

OPINIONS BELOW

_ The opinions of the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals and the_District Court, not officially reported,

appear in the Appendix hereto.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit was entered on April 13, 2005. By order

of the Court, entered on August 19, 2005, the date for

filing the petition for writ of certiorari is October 17,

2005. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

Section 1254(1).

STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

28 U.S.C. §1391(b), 42 U.S.C. § 1983,Washington

Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 2.12(a), and

Washington Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 and

1.7(b) are set out in their entirety in the Appendix

hereto. Appendix, “App.” 25a-29a.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In April 2004, petitioners, residents of California,

brought this action under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 in the

United States District Court for the Central District of

California against the Washington State Bar

Association. The action arises from a State Bar

decision of suspension against petitioner on December

19, 2003. App., 13a.

2

_ The complaint alleges that the Washington State

Bar Association suspended petitioner for violating

State Bar conflict of interest rules in arguments in the

appeal of a civil case that reversed the’ liability of the

clients and petitioner under summary judgment orders

for attorney fees of approximately $50,000 that had

been entered against them. App. 23a, R.2, 3.

Petitioners’ clients were exonerated in the appeal. In

December 2001, the Washington Court of Appeals

reversed and vacated the summary judgment orders.

In April 2002, the State Bar filed a formal complaint

against petitioner, charging that petitioner did not

obtain the consent of the clients to the arguments in the

appeal that vacated petitioners’ liability under the

orders in violation of Washington Rule of Professional

Conduct (“WRPC”) 1.2 (client consultation), and WRPC

1.7(b) (client consent in writing after consultation and a

full disclosure of the material facts). App. 12a, R. 2, 27.

The State Bar’s charges culminate’ ‘n a six month

suspension after a hearing in Washington on these

charges in the absence of testimony or statements from

the clients. The clients reside out-of-state. Their

1 Petitioners’ clients had settled in an earlier case for funds and

stock in a NASDAQ listed company. The agreement has a

provision for legal fees and costs to the party(ies) that

substantially prevail in proceedings arising out of the agreement.

The order granting summary judgment provided, “Counsel’s

arguments did not prevail, but were not frivolous.” The order

granting attorney fees was entered against “Plaintiffs and/or their

attorney of record.” App. 23a. The Washington Court of Appeals

reversed and vacated the orders holding that there were material

issues of fact on the clients’ claims, thus requiring reversal of the

dismissal of the claims. It also held that the inclusion of appellants’

counsel in the judgment was baseless. R. 2, 3.