Beck v. Catanzarite Law Corporation ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Justin S. BECK, Case No.: 22-cv-1616-AGS-DDL 5 Plaintiff, ORDER: 6 v. (1) DISMISSING SECOND 7 CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION, AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF 37) et al., 8 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; Defendants. 9 (2) DENYING AS MOOT ALL 10 PENDING MOTIONS (ECF 39, 41, 43, 45, 54, 55, 64, 70); AND 11 12 (3) CLOSING CASE 13 14 15 Plaintiff Justin Beck’s second amended complaint cures none of the deficiencies 16 identified in the first. (See ECF 35 (dismissing first amended complaint).) So, it must be 17 dismissed. 18 BACKGROUND 19 This case appears to arise from a securities action against Beck that has snowballed 20 into multiple litigations, rolling up additional defendants along the way. From what the 21 Court can glean from the second amended complaint, Beck contends defendant Kenneth 22 Catanzarite and his shareholder clients brought a “false derivative action” against him. 23 (ECF 37, at 13.) Beck complained about Catanzarite to the California State Bar, also a 24 defendant here. Beck maintains that he did not achieve his desired outcome, because the 25 State Bar “conceal[s] criminal conduct, launder[s] money, and control[s] operations” of the 26 state “for corrupt motives and interests.” (Id. at 11.) So Beck filed a Government Claims 27 Act claim in Orange County Superior Court—yet another defendant—which was 28 unsuccessful because, he claims, the court is also a part of the alleged criminal enterprise. 1 (Id. at 10.) The purpose of this enterprise is to “defraud [Beck] of business and property” 2 and “to conceal the conduct and suppress the evidence of public corruption in [Beck’s] 3 possession.” (Id. at 3.) Beck seeks millions in damages and various forms of equitable 4 relief. (See generally id.) 5 There are seven pending motions to dismiss the second amended complaint (ECF 39, 6 41, 43, 45, 54, 55, 64) and a motion to disqualify Catanzarite Law Corporation and its 7 attorneys (ECF 70). Beck has filed numerous oppositions, supplemental documents, and 8 declarations. But the Court need not reach the pending motions as the operative complaint 9 does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 10 DISCUSSION 11 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is 12 entitled to relief” with allegations that are “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. 13 P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). Rule 8 is “not meant to impose a great burden upon a plaintiff.” Dura 14 Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347 (2005). But the complaint must give “fair notice 15 of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (cleaned up). “A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte” for 17 failure to state a claim without notice when “the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar 18 v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). 19 The second amended complaint, like the first, is “disjointed and replete with lengthy 20 excerpts from various state and federal statutes.” (See ECF 35, at 9; see also ECF 37, 21 at 8–10.) It contains “repetitive conclusory allegations of wrongdoing . . . including against 22 nonparties to this action.” (See ECF 35, at 9.) For example, Beck mentions Thomas Girardi 23 and his law firm—neither of which are defendants in this action—over 100 times 24 throughout. (See generally ECF 37.) And the bulk of the 54-page, 264-paragraph amended 25 complaint remains composed of “protracted digressions that appear to have little bearing 26 on any legal claims Beck may be asserting.” (ECF 35, at 9.) Paragraphs 73 through 123 27 seem to be allegations of wire fraud that lack any sense of cohesion or cogent factual 28 details. (ECF 37, at 13–14.) Just as before, this complaint “is bereft of non-conclusory 1 allegations that show how each Defendant’s conduct was actionable thereunder and how 2 Beck himself was injured by such conduct.” (ECF 35, at 9–10.) Thus, because it is far from 3 simple, concise, and direct, Beck’s second amended complaint is dismissed under Rule 8. 4 See Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (upholding Rule 8 5 dismissal when complaint was “verbose, confusing and almost entirely conclusory”). 6 Beck was previously instructed that the second amended complaint “must provide a 7 short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant 8 named in the amended complaint.” (ECF 35, at 18.) Although the Court was “doubtful that 9 Beck [could] allege facts to state a valid claim,” he was granted leave to amend “in light of 10 the special solicitude afforded to pro se litigants.” (Id.) 11 But even solicitude has limits. In addition to the (now) two Rule 8 dismissals in this 12 case, Beck has received Rule 8 dismissals in two other cases in this Court involving the 13 same defendants and same subject matter. See Beck v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 23-cv-0882- 14 AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal. 2023), ECF 16; Beck v. California, 23-cv-0164-AGS-DDL (S.D. 15 Cal. 2023), ECF 37. Beck has had multiple opportunities to fix the identified defects and 16 repeatedly failed to do so. And there is no indication that “less drastic alternatives” would 17 be effective. See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 18 2008). Striking or excusing the defendants from answering irrelevant allegations would not 19 result in “viable, coherent claims” as the complaint is not “logically organized” or 20 “intelligible.” See id. at 1132–33. At this point further amendment would be futile, so the 21 second amended complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. 22 Assn. v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1292–93 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting that 23 while “leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’ . . . futile 24 amendments should not be permitted” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). 25 26 27 28 I CONCLUSION 2 The second amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. All other 3 || pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 4 Dated: February 26, 2024 6 Andrew G. Schopler , United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28