1

RICHARD I. FINE
Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
7

8
RICHARD I. FINE, Case No. CV-10-0048 JFW (CW)
9
Plaintiff,
10 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO STATE
11 vs. BAR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
12

13
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
14 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;
15 SCOTT DREXEL, Chief Trial Counsel
of the State Bar of California; and THE
16
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
17 (only as a necessary party);
18
Defendants.

19

20

21

22
Defendants SCOTT DREXEL (Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of

23 California) served 2/10/10 with Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, the STATE BAR
24
OF CALIFORNIA served 2/18/10, and the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
25

26 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA served 2/18/10 (collectively hereinafter referred

27
to as the “State Bar Defendants”) have only filed the Declaration of Tracey
28

-1-
 1
McCormick in response to the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and a Request for
2 Judicial Notice (“RJN”) in response to the OSC. The RJN consisted of:
3
A. The State Bar Court’s 9/29/08 Recommendation for Disbarment,
4

5 (as the State Bar Court is neither a court of record under the California
6
Constitution nor an administrative agency under California law, and the State Bar
7

8 Court judges act “in the stead of the Board of Governors” of the State Bar as set
9
forth in the State Bar Act codified in the California Business and Professions
10
Code);
11

12 B. The 2/11/09 Denial of Petition for Review, Denial of Application

13
of Stay, Denial of CCP § 425.16 Motion to Dismiss, and a pro forma Order of
14

15 Disbarment based upon the denial of Petition for Review pursuant to California
16
Rules of Court with Justice Werdegar not participating; and
17

18
C. The 3/25/09 denial of the “Motion to Dismiss NDC for Bias,” the

19 denial of the “Motion to Dismiss NDC for Illegal Action” and the denial of the
20
Petition for Rehearing.
21

22 The State Bar defendants did not file any memorandum of points and
23
authorities or legal brief.
24

25 The Declaration of Tracey McCormick (“McCormick Declaration”)

26
admitted that she did not e-mail the Notice of Motion and Motion on behalf of
27
Scott Drexel (which was due on 3/2/10), the State Bar of California and the
28

-2-
 1
Board of Governors of the State Bar of California (which were due on 3/10/10 to
2 her secretary until March 11, 2010. (McCormick Declaration, page 1, lines 15-
3
16). This was nine days after Scott Drexel’s response was due and one day after
4

5 the Sate Bar of California and the Board of Governors of the Sate Bar of
6
California’s responses were due.
7

8 The McCormick Declaration showed that Tracey McCormick did not draft
9
or e-mail any memorandum of points and authorities to accompany the March 11
10
e-mail of the Notice of Motion and the Motion to her secretary.
11

12 The McCormick Declaration claimed that Tracey McCormick “erroneously

13
calculated” the due date of all the responses to be filed 3/19/10. (McCormick
14

15 Declaration, page 1, lines 12-13). This statement was a blatant fraud on the
16
Court. Since there were two separate due dates, 3/2/10 and 3/10/10, it was
17

18
impossible to combine them into one due date, unless such date was 3/2/10, the

19 shorter of the time frames. Additionally, the date of 3/19/10, which Tracey
20
McCormick stated was her “calculated date”, did not have any relationship to the
21

22 20-day response times for the State Bar defendants; it was 17 days beyond the
23
3/2/10 response date for Scott Drexel and 9 days beyond the response date for the
24

25 State Bar of California and the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California.
26
Further, Tracey McCormick is an experienced Federal litigator. She
27
opposed Plaintiff in the case of Fine v. State Bar, et al, USDC case no. CV 08
28

-3-
 1
2906 JFW (CW). She knew that the response time to a summons and complaint
2 is 20 days, as she had complied with such in the earlier case by filing the
3
identical motion on behalf of the identical parties and the State Bar Court judges.
4

5 She lost the motion. Thus, she also knew that, under the principles of “res
6
judicata” and “collateral estoppel”, a motion to dismiss such as the one she filed
7

8 could not be brought. Further, she knew that such motion was frivolous and only
9
meant to harass and delay, even if it were timely, as case precedent holds that
10
state entities may be sued in Federal Court to obtain injunctive relief.
11

12 The McCormick Declaration also fraudulently stated the State Bar

13
Defendants’ filing to be a “Notice of Motion and Motion” (McCormick
14

15 Declaration, page 1, line 21) when the actual filing was a “Re-Notice of Motion
16
and Motion”, leading one to believe that a previous motion existed when such
17

18
was not true.

19 Finally, the McCormick Declaration did not address that fact that, prior to
20
the Court issuing the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff had responded to the State
21

22 Bar Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and filed a Motion to Strike such Motion to
23
Dismiss. The McCormick Declaration did not respond to any of the issues raised
24

25 in Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss, even though the OSC
26
referred to the State Bar Defendants’ failure to respond to such.
27

28

-4-
 1
The failure of the State Bar Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to
2 Strike is an admission of the propriety of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and a
3
consent to striking State Bar Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and entering the
4

5 default against the State Bar Defendants.

6
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the State Bar Defendants’ Motion to
7

8 Dismiss be stricken, and that a default immediately be entered against the State
9
Bar Defendants based upon the facts set forth in the Verified Complaint and as
10
prayed for therein.
11

12

13 Dated this 30th day of April, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

14

15
BY: ____________________________
16
RICHARD I. FINE,
17 In Pro Per
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4

5
I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho
6 Dominguez, CA 90220. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party
7
to the above-entitled action.
8

9 On May 3, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as

10
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO STATE BAR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
11

12 DISMISS on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof,

13
which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the
14
United States Mail, addressed as follows:
15

16 Lawrence C. Yee Michael Van Loewenfeldt

17 Mark Torres-Gil KERR & WAGSTAFF, LLP
Tracey L. McCormick 100 Spear Street, 18th Floor
18
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA San Francisco, CA 94105-1528
19 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
180 Howard Street
20
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
21
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
22
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
23
correct.
24
Executed on this 3rd day of May, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez, California.
25

26

27

28 ____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE

-6-