Case 3 9th Circuit Affirms Trial Court Decision

Posted On Mar 21 2017 by

The 9th Circuit has affirmed the trial court.  Doc_18_1_Memorandum

Case 4 and Case 5 — What may happen on appeal

Posted On Mar 17 2017 by

Case 4 and Case 5 The issue in each case (Case 4 is in Superior Court, Spokane; Case 5 is in US District Court WAED) is whether the WSBA Washington Discipline System is constitutional, does it accord with requirements of procedural due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The superior court judge, Judge Sam Cozza (now deceased), held after exercising some jurisdiction said the court did not have jurisdiction because the Supreme Court has power over the discipline system and that one must raise his constitutional concerns in the discipline process.  But, under the state constitution, the …

Case 5, Reply filed

Posted On Dec 23 2016 by

Case 5 is a US District Court, Eastern District, Washington.  The primary issue in the case is whether the WSBA Washington Lawyer Discipline System violates Eugster’s right to procedural due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yesterday Eugster filed his Reply Brief. All of the necessary pleadings in the trial court and the 9th Circuit may be found at the Case 5 page of this site.      

The New Washington State Bar [sic] Association, Case VIII

Posted On Dec 3 2016 by

The Washington State Bar Association, created by the Bar Act of 1933, came to an end on September 30, 2016 when the WSBA Bylaws were significantly amended. During the afternoon of that day, the WSBA Board of Governors acted to re-form the bar association into an association which includes new mandatory members and mandatory dues payers. The members are lawyers, limited practice officers (APR 12), and limited license legal technicians (APR 28). The “new” WSBA will also operate discipline systems for the groups of new members. This new association is referred to herein as “WSBA 2017″ or “New WSBA.”  The previous association is …

Case VI – WSBA v. Eugster, an update

Posted On Jul 10 2016 by

Much has happened regarding Case VI.  The WSBA has filed charges against Eugster; this is the “Formal Complaint.” Eugster has responded with his Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter and Third-Party Claims together with an appendix which includes the Counter and Third-Party Claims. Why the Counter Claims?  Recall that in Case IV, Eugster v. WSBA et al., the Superior Court trial judge, Sam Cozza, dismissed the case (a Civil Rights section 1983 case) on the basis that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction.  Well, “who does.” You might ask.  You might say the Superior Court has original jurisdiction in all …

Case V: Eugster v. Littlewood, — Defense Motion to Dismiss FRCP 12(b)

Posted On Jun 4 2016 by

Defendants have made the first step in the case.  They have filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) (subject jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to make a claim).  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case under FRCP 12(b).  Defense Motion to Dismiss; Eugster Response to Motion to Dismiss, Reply of Defendants.

Case IV — Superior Court, Case Dismissed: Court does not have jurisdiction

Posted On Apr 8 2016 by

Superior Court judge Salvatore “Sam” Cozza dismissed the Spokane Superior Court action Eugster brought against the WSBA. On April 1, 2016 the court held that Eugster’s Civil Rights action contesting constitutionality of the WSBA Washington Lawyer Discipline System had to be brought in any discipline action the WSBA seeks to bring against Eugster. Simply stated – the rule, for the time being, is that if a lawyer seeks to contest the constitutionality of the WSBA Discipline System in state court, he must be bring it a WSBA Discipline System action. The order and the Notice of Appeal to the Court …

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Posted On Jun 30 2015 by

The Supreme Court, this morning, granted cert in the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.  This case is a challenge to the decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.  The Abood case figures prominently in Eugster v. WSBA et al.  It relates to the issue of the extent to which a lawyer can be compelled to pay for the activities of the WSBA which are not directly related to the WSBA’s discipline activities.  If the court overrules its decision in Abood in the Friedrichs case it will have an impact and I have a much better chance in …