Dandar v. Scientology: Judge Covington order

8/12/2019 Dandar v. Scientology: Judge Covington order

1/50

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTMI DDLE DI STRI CT OF FLORI DA

TAMPA DI VI SI ON

KENNAN G. DANDAR andDANDAR & DANDAR, P. A. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v. Case No. 8: 12- cv- 2477- T- 33EAJ

CHURCH OF SCI ENTOLOGY FLAGSERVI CE ORGANI ZATI ON, I NC. ,F. WALLACE POPE, J R. , J OHNSONPOPE BOKOR RUPPEL & BURNS LLP,

and DAVI D MI SCAVI GE,

Def endant s._______________________________/

ORDER

Thi s cause comes bef or e t he Cour t pur suant t o t he Uni t ed

St at es Cour t of Appeal s f or t he El event h Ci r cui t s Opi ni on

i ssued December 19, 2013 ( Doc. # 74) , and Mandat e i ssued

J anuar y 22, 2014 ( Doc. # 75) . The par t i es f i l ed t hei r br i ef s

i n t hi s mat t er on Febr uary 14, 2014 ( Doc. ## 81, 82) , and t he

Cour t hel d a hear i ng on May 19, 2014 ( Doc. # 90) . I n

accor dance wi t h t he El event h Ci r cui t s i nst r uct i on, t he

pr esent Or der r econsi der s t he di sposi t i on of Count s I and I I

of Dandar s second amended compl ai nt i n l i ght of Spr i nt

Communi cat i ons, I nc. v. J acobs, 134 S. Ct . 584 ( 2013) . For

t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he Cour t f i nds t hat abst ent i on

r emai ns appr opr i at e.

Case 8:12-cv-02477-VMC-EAJ Document 91 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 50 PageID 1771


2/50

I. Background

A. The Alleged Conspiracy

Begi nni ng i n 1997, Pl ai nt i f f Kennan Dandar r epr esent ed

t he Est at e of Li sa McPher son i n a wr ongf ul death act i on

agai nst Def endant Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy Fl ag Ser vi ce

Or gani zat i on i n t he Ci r cui t Cour t of t he Si xt h J udi ci al

Ci r cui t i n and f or Pi nel l as Count y, Fl or i da. ( Doc. # 45 at

22) . Dandar al l eges t hat Def endant Davi d Mi scavi ge, who

Dandar descr i bes as t he wor l dwi de supr eme l eader over al l

Sci ent ol ogy ent i t i es, ( i d. at 19) , r et ai ned Def endant

J ohnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns LLP i n t he McPherson case

due t o [ t he l aw f i r m s] pol i t i cal connect i ons i n Cl ear wat er

and Pi nel l as Count y ( i d. at 24) .

The presi di ng j udge i n t he McPherson mat t er , t he

Honorabl e Robert Beach, t hough not j oi ned as a def endant i n

t hi s act i on, i s al l eged t o have conspi r ed wi t h t he pr i vat e

Def endant s t o vi ol at e Dandar s r i ght s under t he Fi r st ,

Fi f t h, Si xth, and Four t eent h Amendment s t o t he U. S.

Const i t ut i on. ( I d. at 79) . Dandar cl ai ms t hat

Sci ent ol ogy s counsel , af t er meet i ng many t i mes wi t h J udge

Beach ex part e t o gather sympathy f or Sci ent ol ogy i n t he

wr ongf ul deat h case, def amed Dandar i n hi s busi ness

r eput at i on and goodwi l l , and pur suant t o a game pl an

2



3/50

pr evi ousl y concoct ed by . . . Mi scavi ge and Sci ent ol ogy,

convi nced J udge Beach t o cont r i ve a def ect i ve and i l l egal

pr ocedur e . . . t o make t he McPherson case go away by si mpl y

r emovi ng Dandar as counsel f or t he Est at e i n the wr ongf ul

deat h case. ( I d. at 28) . J udge Beach al l egedl y j oi ned

i n t hi s pl an and agr eed t o remove Dandar as l ead counsel f or

t he McPher son est at e. ( I d. ) .

Despi t e havi ng been removed as l ead counsel , Dandar

appear ed at t he May 26, 2004, medi at i on conf erence schedul ed

i n t he McPher son act i on. ( I d. at 33) . Accor di ng t o Dandar ,

Sci ent ol ogy, t hr ough Pope, r ef used t o medi ate t he McPherson

wr ongf ul deat h case, and i nst ead i nsi st ed on a gl obal

set t l ement conf er ence encompassi ng not onl y t he cour t

ordered medi at i on f or t he McPherson case, but al so t he myr i ad

of cases br ought by Sci ent ol ogy and r el at ed ent i t i es agai nst

Dandar , Del l Li ebr ei ch, or t he est at e. ( I d. ) . Dur i ng t he

medi at i on, Dandar agr eed t o a gl obal set t l ement , r el easi ng

any cl ai m he had agai nst Sci ent ol ogy at t hat t i me . . . by

execut i ng a Rel ease . . . so t hat t he Est at e of Li sa McPher son

coul d go f or war d wi t h a set t l ement . ( I d. ) . Al so at t he

conf er ence, Dandar ul t i mat el y si gned ( t hough, Dandar i nsi st s,

not i n hi s i ndi vi dual capaci t y, but r at her as counsel ) a

set t l ement agr eement i ncl udi ng a pr ovi si on t he par t i es r ef er

3



4/50

t o as t he di sengagement cl ause, whi ch pr ovi des, i n r el evant

par t :

The McPher son Par t i es agree t o a f ul l , per manentdi sengagement f r om t he Sci ent ol ogy Par t i es,i ncl udi ng no f ur t her ant i - Sci ent ol ogy act i vi t y, andno i nvol vement i n any adver sar i al pr oceedi ngs ofany descr i pt i on agai nst t he Sci ent ol ogy Par t i esunder any ci r cumst ances at any t i me.

( I d. at 37) .

Dandar , hi s l aw par t ner Thomas J . Dandar , and t hei r l aw

f i r m, Dandar & Dandar , P. A. , wer e i ncl uded wi t hi n t he

set t l ement agr eement s def i ni t i on of t he McPher son Par t i es.

( I d. at 34) . The McPherson case was di smi ssed on J une 8,

2004, by the f i l i ng of a J oi nt Vol unt ar y Di smi ssal Wi t h

Pr ej udi ce. ( I d. at 36) .

Near l y f i ve year s l at er , on Febr uar y 13, 2009, Dandar

f i l ed anot her wr ongf ul deat h act i on agai nst Sci ent ol ogy, t hi s

t i me on behal f of t he Est at e of Kyl e Br ennan, i n t he Uni t ed

St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Mi ddl e Di st r i ct of Fl or i da.

( I d. at 40) . I n r esponse t o Dandar s per cei ved br each of

t he set t l ement agr eement , Def endant s f i l ed a mot i on [ t o

enf or ce t he set t l ement agr eement ] i n t he cl osed case of

McPher son. ( I d. at 43) .

Dandar cont ends t hat , as par t of t he conspi r acy wi t h

Def endant s, J udge Beach hel d t hat t he di sengagement

4



5/50

pr ovi si on pr ohi bi t ed Dandar s r epr esent at i on of t he Br ennan

Est at e i n f eder al cour t , and t hat t hi s pr ohi bi t i on was

enf or ceabl e. ( I d. at 46) . Accor di ngl y, on J une 10, 2009,

J udge Beach or der ed Dandar t o cease hi s r epr esent at i on of al l

par t i es agai nst Sci ent ol ogy ot her t han t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he

now di smi ssed McPher son act i on. ( I d. ) . Dandar appeal ed t hi s

or der t o Fl or i da s Second Di st r i ct Cour t of Appeal , and on

November 13, 2009, t he appel l ate cour t per cur i am af f i r med

J udge Beach s or der . ( I d. at 47) .

On Febr uary 19, 2010, upon Dandar s f ai l ur e to wi t hdr aw

f r om t he Br ennan act i on, J udge Beach hear d Sci ent ol ogy s

mot i on t o enf or ce hi s or der of J une 10, 2009, and Dandar s

mot i on t o voi d t he set t l ement agr eement . ( I d. at 49) . On

Apr i l 12, 2010, at t he behest of Sci ent ol ogy, Pope, and i n

f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy, J udge Beach f ound Dandar i n

ci vi l cont empt of hi s J une 10, 2009, or der , di r ect ed Dandar

t o pay damages, and f ur t her ordered Dandar t o f i l e a mot i on

t o wi t hdr aw i n t he Br ennan act i on. ( I d. ) .

I n compl i ance wi t h J udge Beach s order , Dandar

i mmedi at el y f i l ed i n t he Br ennan . . . case a mot i on ent i t l ed

Unopposed I nvol unt ary Mot i on t o Wi t hdr aw as Counsel f or

Pl ai nt i f f . ( I d. at 50) . On Apr i l 22, 2010, t he di str i ct

cour t deni ed Dandar s mot i on t o wi t hdr aw. ( I d. at 51) . On

5



6/50

May 6, 2010, J udge Beach, as demanded by Def endants, and i n

f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy, di r ect ed Dandar t o appear

per sonal l y and t o show cause as t o why he and the Dandar Law

Fi r m shoul d not be hel d i n i ndi r ect cr i mi nal cont empt of hi s

pr i or or der s . . . , ci t i ng Dandar s i nvol unt ar y mot i on t o

wi t hdr aw i n f eder al cour t as a wi l l f ul vi ol at i on of hi s pr i or

orders . ( I d. ) .

On August 25, 2010, Dandar f i l ed an emergency mot i on on

behal f of t he Br ennan est at e i n t he f eder al act i on seeki ng

a per manent i nj unct i on agai nst Sci ent ol ogy and, i f necessary,

J udge Beach, t o prohi bi t t hei r i nter f er ence wi t h t he f eder al

cour t s or der l y pr ogr essi on of t he case. ( I d. at 52) . The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hat mot i on on August 30, 2012. ( I d. ) .

On August 31, 2010, J udge Beach hel d a hear i ng whi ch resul t ed

i n addi t i onal sanct i ons agai nst Dandar f or f ai l i ng t o

wi t hdr aw f r omt he Br ennan mat t er . ( I d. at 53) . On Sept ember

2, 2010, Dandar f i l ed a second emergency mot i on on behal f of

t he Br ennan est at e f or a per manent i nj unct i on agai nst J udge

Beach and t he Def endant s, i ncl udi ng a r equest f or sanct i ons

agai nst Sci ent ol ogy. ( I d. at 54) . Thi s t i me, t he di st r i ct

cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on. ( I d. at 57) . On Oct ober 13,

2010, J udge Beach r ecused hi msel f f r om any f ur t her

pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng Dandar . ( I d. at 60) .

6



7/50

Sci ent ol ogy appeal ed t o t he El event h Ci r cui t t he

di st r i ct cour t s or der gr ant i ng t he i nj unct i on, and t he

El event h Ci r cui t r ever sed and vacat ed t hat i nj unct i on i n J ul y

of 2011. ( I d. at 61) . Dandar , on behal f of t he Br ennan

est at e, br ought a pet i t i on f or cer t i or ar i t o t he Uni t ed

St at es Supr eme Cour t seeki ng r evi ew of t he deci si on of t he

Cour t of Appeal s f or t he El event h Ci r cui t , but i t was deni ed

on Febr uar y 21, 2012. ( I d. at 68) .

Meanwhi l e, Dandar appeal ed J udge Beach s Apr i l 12, 2010,

or der i mposi ng sanct i ons agai nst hi m t o Fl or i da s Second

Di st r i ct Cour t of Appeal . ( I d. at 63) . On Febr uar y 11,

2011, t hat cour t uphel d J udge Beach s Apr i l 12, 2010, or der

i n al l r espect s wi t h t he except i on of a damages award i mposed

i n er r or . ( I d. at 64) . On May 20, 2011, Dandar f i l ed a

pet i t i on f or wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on wi t h t he Fl or i da Supr eme

Cour t seeki ng an or der di r ect i ng t he Second Di st r i ct Cour t of

Appeal t o i ssue an or der r ecogni zi ng t hat t he ci r cui t cour t

was wi t hout j ur i sdi ct i on t o ent er any or der subsequent t o t he

j oi nt vol unt ar y di smi ssal wi t h prej udi ce f i l ed on J une 8,

2004, and t hat i t exceeded i t s j ur i sdi ct i on by i mposi ng a

pr act i ce r est r i ct i on and or der s of cr i mi nal cont empt of

cour t . ( I d. at 65) . Dandar expl ai ns t hat t he Fl or i da

Supr eme Cour t t r ansf er r ed t he pet i t i on t o t he Fl or i da Cour t

7



8/50

of Appeal f or t he Second Di st r i ct whi ch deni ed i t . ( I d. ) .

On Sept ember 6, 2011, t he st ate appel l ate cour t deni ed

Dandar s pet i t i ons f or r ehear i ng. ( I d. at 66) .

On Oct ober 3, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Dandar s

mot i on t o wi t hdr aw nunc pr o t unc to Apr i l 12, 2010. ( I d. at

67) . On Oct ober 10, 2011, Sci ent ol ogy moved i n Pi nel l as

Count y Ci r cui t Cour t f or t he awar d of at t or ney s f ees,

damages and ot her r el i ef i nci dent t o t he cont empt agai nst

Dandar and t he Dandar Law Fi r m f or br eachi ng t he set t l ement

agr eement pur suant t o Fl or i da Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e

1. 730( c). ( I d. at 69) .

Af t er J udge Beach s r ecusal , t he Honor abl e Cr ocket t

Far nel l assumed j ur i sdi ct i on over t he st at e cour t act i on.

( I d. at 71) . I n J ul y of 2012, J udge Far nel l f ound t hat , i n

accor dance wi t h Rul e 1. 730( c) , Sci ent ol ogy was ent i t l ed t o

al l r easonabl e f ees and cost s i ncur r ed si nce Dandar s f i l i ng

of t he Br ennan compl ai nt on Febr uar y 12, 2009. ( I d. ) .

B. Procedural History in the Present Case

On Oct ober 31, 2012, Dandar and hi s l aw f i r m, Dandar &

Dandar P. A. ( col l ect i vel y ref er r ed t o her ei n as Dandar ) ,

i ni t i at ed t he pr esent act i on agai nst t he Chur ch of

Sci ent ol ogy Fl ag Ser vi ce Or gani zat i on, I nc. , F. Wal l ace Pope

J r . , Rober t Pot t er J r . , t he l aw f i r m of J ohnson Pope Bokor

8



9/50

Ruppel & Bur ns, LLP, and Davi d Mi scavi ge. Dandar s compl ai nt ,

ent i t l ed Ver i f i ed Compl ai nt f or Emer gency Pr el i mi nar y and

Per manent I nj unct i ve Rel i ef , Decl ar at or y J udgment , Damages,

and Demand f or J ur y Tr i al ( Doc. # 1) , sought t o pr event t he

occur r ence of a f i nal hear i ng i n st at e cour t on t he amount of

at t orney s f ees and cost s owed t o Sci ent ol ogy as a consequence

of Dandar s vi ol at i on of t he McPher son set t l ement agr eement .

Dandar char acter i zed hi s cl ai m f or r el i ef as a ci vi l r i ght s

act i on pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983. ( I d. at 1) .

Cont empor aneousl y wi t h t hi s compl ai nt , Dandar f i l ed an

emer gency mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on ( Doc. # 2) , i n

whi ch Dandar r equest ed the i ssuance of an i nj unct i on [ t ] o

pr ohi bi t Def endant s . . . f r om pr oceedi ng t o any hear i ng,

i ncl udi ng t he one schedul ed on November 26, 2012, . . . unt i l

t hi s Cour t has addr essed t he Def endant s vi ol at i ons of

[ Sect i on] 1983. ( I d. at 1) . Af t er a hear i ng, t he Cour t

deni ed Dandar s mot i on f or pr el i mi nary i nj unct i on on November

20, 2012. ( Doc. # 23) . Speci f i cal l y, t he Cour t f ound t hat

Dandar had f ai l ed t o demonst r at e a subst ant i al l i kel i hood of

success on t he mer i t s of hi s Sect i on 1983 cl ai m due t o t he

l ack of al l egat i ons est abl i shi ng st at e act i on on behal f of

t he pr i vat e Def endant s. ( I d. at 10- 18) .

9



10/50

On November 22, 2012, Dandar f i l ed an amended compl ai nt

( Doc. # 24) , shor t l y f ol l owed by an amended mot i on f or

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on ( Doc. # 25) . Thi s t i me, t he amended

compl ai nt r epeat edl y ref er r ed t o an al l eged conspi r acy

bet ween t he pr i vat e Def endant s and cer t ai n st at e act or s. The

compl ai nt al so pur por t ed t o al l ege causes of act i on pur suant

t o 42 U. S. C. 1981 . . . 1985, and 1986. ( Doc. # 24 at

2) . Dandar s amended mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on agai n

asked t he Cour t t o pr ohi bi t Def endant s f r ompr oceedi ng t o any

hear i ng or obt ai ni ng any f ur t her or der agai nst Dandar unt i l

t he Cour t addr essed t he cl ai ms i n Dandar s compl ai nt . ( Doc.

# 25 at 1) . The Cour t hel d a hear i ng on t he amended mot i on

f or prel i mi nar y i nj unct i on on December 7, 2012. ( Doc. # 37) .

On December 17, 2012, t he Cour t ent er ed an Or der once

mor e denyi ng Dandar s r equest f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on.

( Doc. # 38) . Speci f i cal l y, t he Cour t f ound t hat t he

al l egat i ons i n Dandar s amended compl ai nt were concl usor y

and vague, and t hat t hey f ai l ed t o al l ege a conspi r acy

bet ween t he Def endant s and any r el evant st at e act or . ( I d. at

5) . Gi ven t he hi gh bur den f or al l egi ng a Sect i on 1983 cl ai m

agai nst pr i vat e def endant s al l egedl y i nvol ved i n a conspi r acy

wi t h a st ate act or , t he Cour t f ound Dandar s amended compl ai nt

i nsuf f i ci ent t o meet t he pl eadi ng r equi r ement s much l ess

10



11/50

suf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e a subst ant i al l i kel i hood of success

on t he mer i t s. ( I d. at 4- 5) ( quot i ng Har vey v. Har vey, 949

F. 2d 1127, 1133 ( 11t h Ci r . 1992) ( [ T] he pl ai nt i f f must pl ead

i n det ai l , t hr ough r ef er ence t o mat er i al f act s, t he

r el at i onshi p or nat ur e of t he conspi r acy bet ween t he pr i vat e

per son and t he st at e actor . I t i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o mer el y

st r i ng t oget her di scr et e event s, wi t hout showi ng suppor t f or

a reasoned i nf er ence that t he pr i vat e and st at e act or s agr eed

t o vi ol at e t he pl ai nt i f f s r i ght s . ) ) .

On J anuary 7, 2013, Dandar f i l ed hi s second amended

compl ai nt ( Doc. # 45) , whi ch remai ns t he oper at i ve compl ai nt

i n t hi s case. The second amended compl ai nt cont ai ns t wo

count s, ( 1) Decl ar at or y J udgment Act i on and ( 2) 42 U. S. C.

1983, and l i st s t he f ol l owi ng Cl ai ms f or Rel i ef , among

ot her s:

For a decl ar at i on t hat Pl ai nt i f f s cannot besanct i oned by a st at e cour t f or f i l i ng andpar t i ci pat i ng i n a f eder al act i on, whet her or nott he f i l i ng of t he f eder al act i on i s i n br each of apr i vat e set t l ement agr eement ;

* * *

Ent er pr el i mi nar y and per manent i nj unct i onsenj oi ni ng t he Def endant s, t hei r of f i cer s,empl oyees, agent s, at t or neys and successor s, andal l per sons i n act i ve concer t or par t i ci pat i ng wi t hany of t hem, f r om act i vel y assi st i ng t he st at ej udges or cour t s i n t hei r ef f or t s t o i nter f er e wi t ht he Pl ai nt i f f s r i ght s by f i l i ng any sui t based on

11



12/50

t he [ McPherson set t l ement agr eement ] , by conduct i ngany f ur t her hear i ngs, or ent r y of any addi t i onalor der s or j udgment s, and enj oi ni ng the execut i on ofany j udgment .

* * *

Ent er a decl ar at or y j udgment decl ar i ng t hat t heDef endant s acti ons vi ol at ed t he Pl ai nt i f f s Fi r st ,Fi f t h, Si xth, and Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s.

( I d. at 5, 33) .

On J anuar y 18, 2013, Def endant s f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss

Dandar s second amended compl ai nt wi t h pr ej udi ce. ( Doc. #

48) . Def endant s cont ended t hat both t he Rooker- Fel dman and

Younger doct r i nes mandat ed di smi ssal . ( I d. ) . Essent i al l y,

Def endant s argued t hat under Rooker - Fel dman t hi s Cour t di d

not have j ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew t he st at e cour t r ul i ngs

deal i ng wi t h t he i nt er pr et at i on and enf or cement of t he

di sengagement pr ovi si on because t hat i ssue has been f i nal l y

deci ded by t he st at e cour t s ( i d. at 5) , and t hat wi t h

r espect t o t he ongoi ng st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs whi ch deal

wi t h t he Dandar s al l eged vi ol at i on of Rul e 1. 730( c) , Fl a. R.

Ci v. P. , no f i nal j udgment has been ent er ed ( i d. ) , t hus

r equi r i ng Younger abst ent i on out of r espect f or t he st at e

pr oceedi ngs.

Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss addi t i onal l y ar gued t hat

bot h t he [ El event h] Ci r cui t and t hi s Cour t have al r eady not ed

12



13/50

t hat t he Fl or i da cour t s have deci ded t he cor e i ssues i n t hi s

di sput e and t hat t he f ul l f ai t h and credi t doct r i ne r equi r es

t hi s Cour t t o honor and be bound by t hose r ul i ngs. ( I d. at

7) . Def endant s ul t i mat el y ar gued t hat Dandar s cl ai ms wer e

di l at or y and f r i vol ous and shoul d be di smi ssed wi t h

pr ej udi ce and wi t h an awar d of at t or ney f ees. ( I d. at 10) .

C. The February 15, 2013, Order

On Febr uary 15, 2013, t hi s Cour t ent er ed t he Or der t hat

i s the subj ect of t he El event h Ci r cui t s remand. ( Doc. #

57) . I n t hat Or der , t he Cour t not ed t hat , despi t e Def endant s

char acter i zat i ons t o t he cont r ar y, t hi s was t he Cour t s f i r st

oppor t uni t y t o scr ut i ni ze Dandar s cl ai ms t hr ough t he l ens of

a mot i on t o di smi ss. ( I d. at 12) . The onl y ot her subst ant i ve

or der s ent er ed i n thi s mat t er ( Doc. ## 23, 28) i nst ead appl i ed

t he f our - par t anal ysi s f or eval uat i ng a mot i on f or

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, and t he Cour t f ound on bot h occasi ons

t hat Dandar had not demonst r at ed a subst ant i al l i kel i hood of

success on t he mer i t s. ( Doc. # 57 at 13) .

Wi t hi n t he Febr uar y 15, 2013, Or der , t he Cour t f ound

t hat t he Rooker - Fel dman doct r i ne di d not pr ecl ude exer ci si ng

j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s case, r easoni ng t hat :

I f Dandar wer e mer el y cl ai mi ng t hat t hedeci si on[ s] of t he st at e cour t [ wer e] i ncor r ect ort hat t he deci si on[ s] [ t hemsel ves] vi ol at ed hi s

13



14/50

const i t ut i onal r i ght s[ , ] such cl ai ms woul d bebar r ed. I nst ead, because Dandar s Sect i on 1983cl ai m al l eges that people involved in thedecision vi ol at ed some i ndependent r i ght of hi s .

. . t hen [ Dandar can] , wi t hout bei ng bl ocked by t heRooker - Fel dman doct r i ne, sue t o vi ndi cat e thatr i ght .

( I d. at 14) ( quot i ng Gr eat West er n Mi ni ng & Mi ner al Co. v.

Fox Rot hschi l d LLP, 615 F. 3d 159, 171 ( 3d Ci r . 2010) ) .

Nonet hel ess, t he Cour t f ound t hat i t coul d not pr ovi de

t he equi t abl e rel i ef Dandar sought because doi ng so woul d

undul y i nt er f er e wi t h t he l egi t i mat e act i vi t i es of t he st at e

cour t , where a f i nal j udgment had not yet been ent ered wi t h

r espect t o J udge Far nel l s f i ndi ng t hat Sci ent ol ogy was

ent i t l ed t o al l r easonabl e f ees and cost s i ncur r ed si nce

Dandar s f i l i ng of t he Br ennan compl ai nt on Febr uar y 12, 2009.

( I d. at 15- 29) . The Cour t t hus abst ai ned pur suant t o Younger

v. Har r i s, 401 U. S. 37 ( 1971) , f i ndi ng t hat Dandar s r equest

ef f ect i vel y asked t hi s Cour t t o enj oi n a st at e cour t f r om

pr oceedi ng t o f i nal i ze a st at e j udgment on gr ounds t hat t he

st at e j udi ci ar y has i mposed t hat j udgment unconst i t ut i onal l y

- pr eci sel y t he nat ur e of r el i ef pr ohi bi t ed by Younger and

i t s pr ogeny. ( Doc. # 57 at 22) . The Cour t r easoned t hat

t hi s r equest woul d vi ol at e Congr ess s mani f est desi r e to

per mi t st at e cour t s t o t r y cases f r ee f r om i nt er f er ence by

f eder al cour t s. ( I d. at 15) ( quot i ng Younger , 401 U. S. at

14



15/50

43) .

I n appl yi ng Younger abst ent i on, t hi s Cour t r el i ed on t he

t hr ee- par t t est der i ved f r om t he Supr eme Cour t s deci si on i n

Mi ddl esex Count y Et hi cs Commi t t ee v. Garden St ate Bar

Associ at i on, 457 U. S. 423 ( 1982) . The Cour t accor di ngl y

anal yzed t he appr opr i at eness of abst ent i on by consul t i ng t he

f ol l owi ng consi der at i ons: ( 1) Do t he pr oceedi ngs const i t ut e

an ongoi ng st at e j udi ci al pr oceedi ng? ( 2) Do the pr oceedi ngs

i mpl i cat e an i mpor t ant st at e i nt er est ? ( 3) I s t her e an

adequat e oppor t uni t y i n t he st at e pr oceedi ngs t o r ai se

const i t ut i onal chal l enges? ( Doc. # 57 at 16- 17) ; Mi ddl esex

Count y, 457 U. S. at 432- 37. Af t er answer i ng each of t hese

quest i ons i n t he af f i r mat i ve, and f i ndi ng t hat no except i ons

t o abst ent i on wer e appl i cabl e, t hi s Cour t f ound t hat Younger

abst ent i on appl i ed i n t hi s case. ( Doc. # 57 at 24) .

The Cour t t hus di smi ssed Dandar s cl ai ms f or decl ar at or y

and i nj unct i ve r el i ef . ( I d. at 31) . However , t he Cour t

f ur t her f ound t hat , t o the ext ent Dandar sought damages

agai nst Def endant s under Sect i on 1983, Younger was not

necessar i l y a j ur i sdi ct i onal bar . The Cour t t hus st ayed

Dandar s 1983 cl ai m f or damages pendi ng t he compl et i on of

t he st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs. ( I d. at 32) . The Cour t f ur t her

decl i ned Dandar s r equest t o f i l e a t hi r d amended compl ai nt

15



16/50

i n or der t o add a count f or vi ol at i on of 42 U. S. C. 1985( 2) ,

f i ndi ng t hat such an amendment woul d be f ut i l e. ( I d. at 35) .

On March 17, 2013, Dandar f i l ed a not i ce of appeal of

t hi s Cour t s Febr uar y 15, 2013, Or der . ( Doc. # 61) . Dandar

appeal ed t hi s Cour t s par t i al di smi ssal of Dandar s cl ai ms as

wel l as t he Cour t s deni al of l eave t o amend hi s compl ai nt

f or a t hi r d t i me.

D. Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs

On December 10, 2013, dur i ng t he pendency of Dandar s

appeal , t he Supr eme Cour t deci ded Spr i nt Communi cat i ons, I nc.

v. J acobs, 134 S. Ct . 584 ( 2013) . The f act s of t hat case, as

st at ed i n t he Supr eme Cour t s opi ni on, ar e as f ol l ows:

Thi s case i nvol ves t wo proceedi ngs, one pendi ng i nst at e cour t , t he ot her i n f eder al cour t . Each seeksr evi ew of an I owa Ut i l i t i es Boar d ( I UB or Boar d)order . And each pr esent s t he quest i on whetherWi ndst r eamI owa Communi cat i ons, I nc. ( Wi ndst r eam) ,a l ocal t el ecommuni cat i ons car r i er , may i mpose onSpr i nt Communi cat i ons, I nc. ( Spr i nt ) , i nt r ast at eaccess char ges f or t el ephone cal l s t r anspor t ed vi at he I nt er net . . . . I nvoki ng Younger v. Har r i s . .. , t he U. S. Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Sout her nDi st r i ct of I owa abst ai ned f r om adj udi cat i ngSpr i nt s compl ai nt i n def er ence t o t he par al l elst at e- cour t pr oceedi ng, and t he Cour t of Appeal sf or t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t af f i r med t he Di st r i ct

Cour t s abst ent i on deci si on.

I d. at 588.

I n af f i r mi ng t he di st r i ct cour t , t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t r ead

Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , namel y Mi ddl esex Count y, t o r equi r e

16



17/50

Younger abst ent i on whenever an ongoi ng st at e j udi ci al

pr oceedi ng . . . i mpl i cat es i mpor t ant st at e i nt er est s, and .

. . t he st at e pr oceedi ngs pr ovi de adequat e oppor t uni t y to

r ai se f eder al chal l enges. I d. at 590.

I n anal yzi ng whet her Younger abst ent i on was appr opr i at e,

t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned: Ci r cumst ances f i t t i ng wi t hi n

t he Younger doct r i ne, we have st r essed, ar e except i onal ;

t hey i ncl ude, as cat al ogued i n [ New Or l eans Publ i c Ser vi ce,

I nc. v. Counci l of Ci t y of New Or l eans, 491 U. S. 350 ( 1989) ,

( NOPSI ) ] , st at e cri mi nal pr osecut i ons, ci vi l enf or cement

pr oceedi ngs, and ci vi l pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng cer t ai n or der s

t hat ar e uni quel y i n f ur t her ance of t he st at e cour t s abi l i t y

t o per f or mt hei r j udi ci al f unct i ons. Spr i nt , 134 S. Ct . at

588. The Cour t f ur t her expl ai ned: We have not appl i ed

Younger out si de t hese t hree except i onal cat egor i es, and

t oday hol d . . . t hat t hey def i ne Younger s scope. I d. at

591.

To t hat end, t he Supreme Court f ound t hat t he I UB

pr oceedi ng at i ssue i n Spr i nt di d not f al l wi t hi n any of t he

t hr ee except i onal cat egor i es descr i bed i n NOPSI and t her ef or e

does not t r i gger Younger abst ent i on. I d. at 592. I n so

f i ndi ng, t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned t hat t he t hr ee Mi ddl esex

Count y f act or s on whi ch t he Ei ght h Ci r cui t had r el i ed wer e

17



18/50

not di sposi t i ve; t hey wer e, i nst ead, additional f actor s

appr opr i at el y consi der ed by t he f eder al cour t bef or e i nvoki ng

Younger . I d. at 592- 93. The Supreme Cour t t hus concl uded,

t o gui de ot her f eder al cour t s, we t oday cl ar i f y and af f i r m

t hat Younger extends t o t he t hr ee except i onal ci r cumst ances

i dent i f i ed i n NOPSI , but no f ur t her . I d. at 593- 94.

E. Eleventh Circuit Opinion

On December 19, 2013, t he El event h Ci r cui t i ssued an

opi ni on af f i r mi ng i n par t and vacat i ng and r emandi ng i n par t

t hi s Cour t s Febr uar y 15, 2013, Or der . ( Doc. # 74) . On t he

i ssue of Younger abst ent i on, t he El event h Ci r cui t not ed t he

Supr eme Cour t s r ecent cl ar i f i cat i on i n Spr i nt t hat t he t hr ee

Mi ddl esex Count y f act or s ar e not di sposi t i ve; t hey [ ar e] ,

i nst ead, additional f act or s appr opr i at el y consi der ed by t he

f eder al cour t bef or e i nvoki ng Younger , whi ch i t sel f set s

f or t h onl y t hr ee l i mi t ed ci r cumst ances i n whi ch abst ent i on i s

appr opr i at e. ( I d. at 3- 4) . Because t he di st r i ct cour t di d

not have t he benef i t of t hi s gui dance, t he El event h Ci r cui t

r emanded t he i ssue f or t hi s Cour t s consi der at i on i n t he f i r st

i nst ance whet her t he pr esent case i nvol ves one of t he t hr ee

l i mi t ed ci r cumst ances i n whi ch abst ent i on i s appr opr i at e.

( I d. at 4) .

Wi t h r espect t o Dandar s r equest f or l eave t o amend hi s

18



19/50

compl ai nt t o add a 42 U. S. C. 1985( 2) cl ai m, t he El event h

Ci r cui t af f i r med t hi s Cour t s deni al of l eave t o amend.

F. The Parties Respective Positions and the StateCourts Entry of Final Judgment

Upon i ssuance of t he El event h Ci r cui t s Mandat e (Doc. #

75) , t hi s Cour t r e- opened t he i nst ant case on J anuar y 23,

2014, and di r ect ed each par t y to submi t a memorandumdetai l i ng

t hei r r espect i ve posi t i ons on t he i mpact of Spr i nt s r ecent

cl ar i f i cat i on on t hi s Cour t s Febr uar y 15, 2013, Or der . ( Doc.

# 76) .

Bot h par t i es br i ef ed t hi s i ssue on Febr uar y 14, 2014.

( Doc. ## 81, 82) . Def endant s asser t ed t hat t he Cour t s

Febr uar y 15, 2013, Or der i s cor r ect under t he newl y- cl ar i f i ed

st andar d i n Spr i nt because t hi s case i nvol ves bot h ci vi l

enf or cement pr oceedi ngs and ci vi l pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng

or der s t hat ar e uni quel y i n f ur t her ance of t he st at e cour t s

abi l i t y t o per f orm t hei r j udi ci al f unct i ons, thus f i t t i ng

squar el y wi t hi n Younger . ( Doc. # 82 at 2) . Dandar , however ,

asser t ed t hat t hi s case does not f i t i nt o any of t he t hr ee

except i onal ci r cumst ances because [ j ] ust as i n Spr i nt ,

whi ch was a st at e case i ni t i at ed by a pr i vat e par t y, t he

subj ect st at e cour t mat t er was i ni t i at ed by mot i on by a

19



20/50

pr i vat e cor por at i on, Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy. ( Doc. # 81 at

2) .

Dandar addi t i onal l y ar gued: The st at e cour t has now

ent ered a Fi nal J udgment agai nst Dandar i n excess of $1

mi l l i on. Sci ent ol ogy seeks i mmedi at e enf or cement . ( I d. ) .

Dandar expr essed hi s i nt ent i on t o seek an i nj unct i on t o st ay

any execut i on of t he st at e cour t j udgment , ent er ed wi t hout

any power t o do so under [ Donovan v. Ci t y of Dal l as, 377 U. S.

408 ( 1964) ] . ( I d. at 4) .

On March 28, 2014, Def endant s f i l ed a st at us r epor t i n

whi ch t hey expl ai ned: On March 17, 2014, t he Pi nel l as Count y

Ci r cui t Cour t ent er ed an or der of f i ndi ngs of f act and

concl usi ons of l aw and an or der of f i nal j udgment i n f avor of

t he Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy . . . . On Mar ch 28, 2014, t he

Dandar s f i l ed a not i ce appeal i ng the t wo or der s dat ed Mar ch

17, 2014. ( Doc. # 88 at 3) .

II. Discussion

A. YoungerAbstention

J ur i sdi ct i on exi st i ng, [ t he Supr eme Cour t ] has

caut i oned, a f eder al cour t s obl i gat i on t o hear and deci de a

case i s vi r t ual l y unf l aggi ng. Spr i nt , 134 S. Ct . at 591

( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . Par al l el st at e- cour t

pr oceedi ngs do not det r act f r om t hat obl i gat i on. I d.

20



21/50

However , t hi s obl i gat i on coexi st s wi t h Congr ess s mani f est

desi r e t o per mi t st at e cour t s t o t r y st at e cases f r ee f r om

i nt er f er ence by f eder al cour t s. Younger v. Har r i s, 401 U. S.

37, 43 ( 1971) .

Younger v. Har r i s . . . and i t s pr ogeny espouse a

st r ong f eder al pol i cy agai nst f eder al - cour t i nt er f er ence wi t h

pendi ng stat e j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs absent ext r aor di nar y

ci r cumst ances. 1 Mi ddl esex Count y, 457 U. S. at 431. The

Supr eme Cour t r ecent l y cl ar i f i ed i n Spr i nt t hat t he

except i onal ci r cumst ances war r ant i ng abst ent i on under Younger

exi st i n t hr ee t ypes of pr oceedi ngs:

Fi r st , Younger pr ecl ude[ s] f eder al i nt r usi on i nt oongoi ng st at e cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons. Second,cer t ai n ci vi l enf or cement pr oceedi ngs war r ant [ ]abst ent i on. Fi nal l y, f eder al cour t s r ef r ai n[ ]f r om i nt er f er i ng wi t h pendi ng ci vi l pr oceedi ngsi nvol vi ng cer t ai n or der s . . . uni quel y i nf ur t her ance of t he st at e cour t s abi l i t y t o per f or mt hei r j udi ci al f unct i ons.

Spr i nt , 134 S. Ct . at 591 ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Thus, f or Younger abst ent i on t o appl y i n t he present

case, whi ch does not i nvol ve a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on, t he Cour t

1Not abl y, i n accor dance wi t h Samuel s v. Mackel l , 401 U. S. 66,73 ( 1971) , t he pr i nci pl es of Younger al so appl y t odecl ar at or y j udgment s t hat woul d ef f ect i vel y enj oi n st at epr oceedi ngs. Ol d Republ i c Uni on I ns. Co. v. Ti l l i s Tr ucki ngCo. , I nc. , 124 F. 3d 1258, 1261 ( 11t h Ci r . 1997) ( i nt er nalci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

21



22/50

must determi ne whether t he st ate pr oceedi ngs const i t ut e

ei t her ci vi l enf or cement pr oceedi ngs or pendi ng ci vi l

pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng cer t ai n or der s . . . uni quel y i n

f ur t her ance of t he st at e cour t s abi l i t y t o per f or m t hei r

j udi ci al f unct i ons. Sci ent ol ogy cont ends t hi s case woul d

f i t wi t hi n ei t her of t hese except i onal ci r cumst ances, but

Dandar mai nt ai ns t hat nei t her one appl i es. Because t he Cour t

det er mi nes t hat t he st at e act i on i s a ci vi l pr oceedi ng

i nvol vi ng or der s uni quel y i n f ur t her ance of t he st at e cour t s

abi l i t y t o per f or mi t s j udi ci al f unct i ons, t he Cour t decl i nes

t o reach t he quest i on as t o whet her i t may al so be cat egor i zed

as a ci vi l enf or cement pr oceedi ng.

To br i ef l y address t he i ssue of whet her t he st at e cour t

pr oceedi ngs r emai n ongoi ng despi t e the ent r y of f i nal

j udgment on Mar ch 17, 2014, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he st at e

mat t er i ndeed r emai ns pendi ng. Because Dandar has appeal ed

t he st at e cour t or der s ent er ed on Mar ch 17, 2014, r ai si ng on

appeal some of t he same i ssues i mpl i cat ed i n hi s r equest f or

i nj uncti ve r el i ef bef or e t hi s Cour t , 2t he rel evant pr oceedi ngs

2 At t he May 19, 2014 hear i ng, t he Cour t asked Dandar t ospeci f y t he gr ounds f or hi s st at e cour t appeal f i l ed on Mar ch28, 2014. Dandar cl ar i f i ed t hat t he pendi ng st at e mat t er si ncl ude not onl y hi s appeal of t he f i nal j udgment , but al soa wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on pendi ng bef or e t he Fl or i da Supr emeCour t . Dandar pr evi ousl y f i l ed a mot i on t o st ay the execut i on

22



23/50

r emai n ongoi ng f or t he pur pose of det er mi ni ng t he appl i cat i on

of Younger . Thus, t he Cour t s Younger abst ent i on anal ysi s

her ei n woul d appl y wi t h equal f or ce t o Dandar s i ni t i al

r equest t o enj oi n t he ent r y of f i nal j udgment i n st at e cour t

as i t does t o Dandar s cur r ent r equest t o enj oi n t he execut i on

of t hat j udgment dur i ng t he pendency of hi s st at e cour t

appeal .

Vi r t ual l y al l of t he evi l s at whi ch Younger i s di r ected

woul d i nher e i n f eder al i nt er vent i on pr i or t o compl et i on of

st at e appel l at e pr oceedi ngs, j ust as sur el y as t hey woul d i f

such i nt er vent i on occur r ed at or bef or e t r i al . Huf f man v.

Pur sue, Lt d. , 420 U. S. 592, 608 ( 1975) . For Younger

pur poses, t he St at e s t r i al - and- appeal s pr ocess i s t r eat ed as

a uni t ar y syst em, and f or a f eder al cour t t o di sr upt i t s

i nt egr i t y by i nt er veni ng i n mi d- pr ocess woul d demonst r at e a

l ack of r espect f or t he St at e as sover ei gn. NOPSI , 491 U. S.

at 369.

of t he j udgment i n t he st at e ci r cui t cour t and sought t hesame r el i ef f r om t he appel l at e cour t , but bot h r equest s havebeen deni ed. Dandar st at es t hat t he gr ounds f or hi s st at e

cour t appeal and t he pendi ng wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on ar e most l yt he same; speci f i cal l y, Dandar ar gues t hat t he st at e cour tnever had subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on t o ent er i t s or der si mposi ng sanct i ons agai nst hi mand t hat t he Donovan mandate( agai n r ef er enci ng Donovan v. Ci t y of Dal l as, 377 U. S. 408( 1964) ) demonst r at es t hat t he st at e cour t s j udgment wasent er ed i n er r or .

23



24/50

1. Orders Uniquely in Furtherance of the State

Courts Ability to Perform their Judicial

Functions

I n enumer at i ng the t hi r d except i onal ci r cumst ance

r ecogni zed by NOPSI , Spr i nt ci t es t o t wo cases: J ui di ce v.

Vai l , 430 U. S. 327 ( 1977) , and Pennzoi l Co. v. Texaco, I nc. ,

481 U. S. 1, 13- 14 ( 1987) . Spr i nt , 134 S. Ct . at 591.

Accor di ngl y, t hi s Cour t has car ef ul l y consul t ed t hese cases

f or gui dance i n det er mi ni ng whet her t he r el evant st at e act i on

i nvol ves an or der uni quel y i n f ur t her ance of t he st at e cour t s

abi l i t y t o per f orm i t s j udi ci al f unct i ons .

I n J ui di ce, t he Supr eme Cour t appl i ed Younger t o a

Sect i on 1983 act i on i n whi ch an i ndi vi dual was hel d i n

cont empt of cour t by t he Count y Cour t of Dut chess Count y, New

York, f or f ai l i ng t o compl y wi t h a subpoena r equi r i ng hi s

appear ance at a deposi t i on. J ui di ce, 430 U. S. at 328- 29.

That i ndi vi dual , Har r y Vai l , t her eaf t er f i l ed an act i on i n

t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of

New Yor k seeki ng t o enj oi n t he use of t he st atut ory cont empt

procedures aut hor i zed by New York l aw and empl oyed by

appel l ant j ust i ces on t he gr ound t hat t he pr ocedur es . . .

vi ol ated t he Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St ates

Const i t ut i on. I d. at 330.

24



25/50

Ref er r i ng t o t he r easoni ng of Ex par t e Young, 209 U. S.

123 ( 1908) , t hat t he Feder al cour t cannot , of cour se,

i nt er f ere i n a case where t he pr oceedi ngs were al r eady pendi ng

i n a st at e cour t , t he Supr eme Cour t det er mi ned t hat t hi s

same pr i nci pl e appl i ed i n J ui di ce. J ui di ce, 430 U. S. at 335.

The Supreme Cour t expl ai ned t hat [ a] st at e s i nter est i n t he

cont empt pr ocess, t hr ough whi ch i t vi ndi cat es t he r egul ar

oper at i on of i t s j udi ci al syst em, so l ong as t hat syst em

i t sel f af f or ds t he oppor t uni t y t o pur sue f eder al cl ai ms

wi t hi n i t , i s sur el y an i mpor t ant i nt er est . I d.

Addi t i onal l y, t he Cour t not ed t hat f eder al - cour t i nt er f er ence

wi t h t he st at e s cont empt pr ocess not onl y undul y

i nt er f er e( s) wi t h t he l egi t i mat e act i vi t i es of t he stat ( e) ,

but al so can r eadi l y be i nt er pr et ed as r ef l ect i ng negat i vel y

upon t he st at e cour t s abi l i t y t o enf or ce const i t ut i onal

pr i nci pl es. I d. at 336 ( quot i ng Huf f man, 420 U. S. at 601,

604) .

Appl yi ng t he pr i nci pl es out l i ned i n J ui di ce, t he Supr eme

Cour t i n Pennzoi l Co. v. Texaco, I nc. , 481 U. S. 1, 13- 14

( 1987) , r easoned t hat [ t ] her e i s l i t t l e di f f er ence bet ween

t he St at e s i nt er est i n f or ci ng per sons t o [ act ] i n r esponse

t o a cour t s j udgment and i n f or ci ng per sons t o r espond t o

t he cour t s pr ocess on pai n of cont empt . I n Pennzoi l ,

25



26/50

Pennzoi l obt ai ned a j ur y ver di ct i n st at e cour t agai nst Texaco

amount i ng t o near l y $11 bi l l i on. I d. at 4. Bef or e t he st at e

cour t ent er ed j udgment , Texaco f i l ed an act i on i n t he Uni t ed

St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k

chal l engi ng a Texas l aw per mi t t i ng a j udgment cr edi t or t o

secur e and execut e a l i en on a j udgment debt or s propert y

unl ess t he debt or f i l ed a bond i n at l east t he amount of t he

j udgment , i nter est , and cost s. I d. at 4- 5. Unabl e t o post

t he bond (whi ch, i n accordance wi t h the Texas l aw, woul d have

amount ed t o mor e t han $13 bi l l i on) , Texaco asked t he Di st r i ct

Cour t t o enj oi n Pennzoi l f r om t aki ng any act i on t o enf or ce

t he j udgment . I d. at 6. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed

i nj unct i ve r el i ef , and t he Second Ci r cui t af f i r med, f i ndi ng

t hat abst ent i on was unnecessar y. I d. at 7- 9.

The Supreme Cour t , however , f ound t hat [ t ] he cour t s

bel ow shoul d have abst ai ned under t he pr i nci pl es of

f eder al i smenunci at ed i n Younger v. Har r i s. I d. at 10. The

Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s deci si on

i mpl i cat ed a vi t al st at e i nt er est i n t hat St at es have

i mpor t ant i nt er est s i n admi ni st er i ng cer t ai n aspect s of t hei r

j udi ci al syst ems, and compar ed t he case t o J ui di ce,

r easoni ng t hat bot h [ cases] i nvol ve chal l enges t o t he

pr ocesses by whi ch t he St ate compel s compl i ance wi t h t he

26



27/50

j udgment s of i t s cour t s. Not onl y woul d f eder al i nj unct i ons

i n such cases i nt er f er e wi t h t he execut i ons of st at e

j udgment s, but t hey woul d do so on grounds t hat chal l enge t he

ver y pr ocess by whi ch t hose j udgment s were obt ai ned. I d. at

12- 14.

I n t he i nst ant case, Dandar has f r amed t he second amended

compl ai nt as an act i on agai nst pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s based on

Sect i on 1983 and t he Decl aratory J udgment Act . However , t he

r el i ef Dandar seeks i s ef f ect i vel y t he same as t hat pr ohi bi t ed

by Younger as i nt er pr et ed by J ui di ce and Pennzoi l . That i s,

Dandar asks t hi s Cour t t o enj oi n t he execut i on of a st at e

j udgment on grounds t hat t he st at e j udi ci ar y has i mposed t hat

j udgment unconst i t ut i onal l y. The Cour t f i nds t hat ent er i ng

such an i nj unct i on i n t hi s case, as i n J ui di ce, woul d not

onl y undul y i nt er f er e[ ] wi t h t he l egi t i mat e acti vi t i es of

t he st at ( e) , but al so can r eadi l y be i nt er pr et ed as

r ef l ect i ng negat i vel y upon t he st at e cour t s abi l i t y t o

enf or ce const i t ut i onal pr i nci pl es. J ui di ce, 430 U. S. at

336 ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

I n ar gui ng that Younger abst ent i on i s unnecessary her e,

Dandar char act er i zes t he st at e cour t s order i mposi ng

sanct i ons agai nst hi m as ar i si ng out of t he McPher son

set t l ement agr eement , whi ch i s a cont r act bet ween pr i vat e

27



28/50

par t i es rat her t han a di r ect or der of t he st at e cour t . Dandar

t hus i nsi st s t hat an or der r el at i ng t o t hi s agr eement cannot

const i t ut e one uni quel y i n f ur t her ance of t he stat e cour t s

abi l i t y t o per f or m i t s j udi ci al f unct i ons. To char act er i ze

t he st at e cour t s or der i n t hi s l i ght , however , i gnor es t he

ver y gr ounds on whi ch t he order i s premi sed.

Fl or i da Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 1. 730 speci f i cal l y

empower s t he st at e cour t s of Fl or i da to ent er a f i nal j udgment

i mposi ng sanct i ons, cost s, and at t or ney f ees as a consequence

of a par t y s f ai l ur e t o per f or munder an agr eement ent er ed i n

t he cour se of cour t - or der ed medi at i on. The Cour t f i nds t hat

i nt er f er i ng wi t h a st at e cour t s abi l i t y to i mpose t hese

sanct i ons and f ees, f or i nst ance by enj oi ni ng t he par t i es

bef or e t he st at e cour t f r om seeki ng execut i on of f i nal

j udgment , 3 woul d t hus const i t ut e an except i onal ci r cumst ance

i n whi ch t he rel evant st at e pr oceedi ngs i nvol ve an or der

3 Dandar , at var i ous poi nt s i n t hi s l i t i gat i on, has at t empt edt o di st i ngui sh bet ween ( 1) t he act of enj oi ni ng the privateDefendants f r om t aki ng par t i n t he st at e pr oceedi ngs and ( 2)t he act of enj oi ni ng the state court itself f r om cont i nui ng

f or war d wi t h t he pr oceedi ngs. Thi s Cour t not es, however ,t hat t he Pennzoi l Cour t f ound Younger abst ent i on appr opr i at ewher e t he pl ai nt i f f asked t he Di st r i ct Cour t t o enjoinPennzoil f r om t aki ng any act i on t o enf or ce t he [ st at e cour t ]j udgment . Pennzoi l , 481 U. S. at 6. The Cour t t her ef or ef i nds t hat Dandar s exer ci se i n semant i cs pr esent s no novelbar t o Younger abst ent i on i n t he pr esent case.

28



29/50

uni quel y i n f ur t her ance of t he st at e cour t s abi l i t y t o

perf orm i t s j udi ci al f unct i ons.

Dandar acknowl edges i n t he second amended compl ai nt t hat

t he rel evant agr eement was r eached dur i ng t he schedul ed

medi at i on of t he McPherson case. ( Doc. # 45 at 33) .

However , Dandar f ur t her al l eges t hat t he agr eement r eached at

t hi s medi at i on const i t ut ed a gl obal set t l ement t hat

encompass[ ed] not onl y t he cour t or der ed medi at i on f or t he

McPherson case, but al so t he myr i ad of cases brought by

Sci ent ol ogy and r el at ed ent i t i es agai nst Dandar , Del l

Li ebr ei ch, or t he est at e, and t her ef or e t hat such a gl obal

set t l ement conf er ence was never cour t - or der ed. ( I d. ) .

The Cour t f i nds t hi s ar gument unavai l i ng, as t he scope

of Rul e 1. 730 i s not so l i mi t ed i n r each. The r ul e does not

conf i ne t he appl i cabi l i t y of sanct i ons under par t ( c) t o

cer t ai n t er ms of an agr eement , nor does t he rul e requi r e a

cour t t o i nqui r e i nt o t he t er ms of t he agr eement r eached at

medi at i on t o deter mi ne whet her t he agr eement somehow exceeded

t he i nt ended scope of t he medi at i on. To t he cont r ar y, Rul e

1. 730 consi der s onl y whet her a par t i al or f i nal agr eement i s

r eached and r educed t o wr i t i ng and si gned by t he par t i es

and t hei r counsel , i f any, upon compl et i on of t he medi at i on.

Fl a. R. Ci v. P. 1. 730( b) .

29



30/50

Addi t i onal l y, wi t h r egar d t o Dandar s ar gument t hat i t

i s not an essent i al j udi ci al f unct i on of t he st at e cour t t o

enf or ce t he t er ms of t he par t i es pr i vat e set t l ement

agr eement , t he Cour t f i nds t he f ol l owi ng l anguage f r om

J ui di ce i nst r uct i ve:

Cont empt i n t hese cases, serves, of cour se, t ovi ndi cat e and pr eser ve t he pr i vat e i nt er est s ofcompet i ng l i t i gant s, but i t s pur pose i s by no meansspent upon pur el y pr i vat e concer ns. I t st ands i nai d of t he aut hor i t y of t he j udi ci al syst em, so

t hat i t s or der s and j udgment s ar e not r ender ednugat or y.

J ui di ce, 430 U. S. at 336 n. 12. The sanct i ons Dandar i ncur r ed

as a r esul t of vi ol at i ng an agr eement r eached at cour t - or der ed

medi at i on wer e speci f i cal l y aut hor i zed by Rul e 1. 730( c) .

Thi s r ul e, j ust as t he st at e s ci vi l cont empt process, st ands

i n ai d of t he aut hor i t y of t he j udi ci al syst em so t hat i t s

pr ocedur es and orders are not r endered meani ngl ess when

conf r ont ed by a par t y i ncl i ned t o di sobey.

The Cour t addi t i onal l y not es t he Pennzoi l Cour t s

r easoni ng t hat St at es have i mpor t ant i nt er est s i n

admi ni st er i ng cer t ai n aspect s of t hei r j udi ci al syst ems.

Pennzoi l , 481 U. S. at 12- 13. As expl ai ned by Def endant s i n

t hei r post - r emand br i ef :

The Fl or i da Supreme Cour t consi der s t he medi at i onsyst em suf f i ci ent l y i mpor t ant and cruci al t o t heef f i ci ent oper at i on of Fl or i da s system of ci vi l

30



31/50

j ust i ce t hat i t promul gat ed Rul e 1. 730( c) t o al l owf or sanct i ons on par t i es who af f i r mat i vel y br eachor f ai l t o per f or m set t l ement agr eement s r eachedt hr ough cour t - or der ed medi at i on. Thi s r ul e

demonst r at es Fl or i da s st r ong i nt er est i nencour agi ng par t i es t o set t l e ci vi l di sput est hr ough medi at i on, and t he stat e s st r ong i nt er esti n enf or ci ng such agr eement s.

( Doc. # 82 at 6- 7) . For t hi s reason, t he Cour t f i nds that

i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he stat e cour t s abi l i t y t o gr ant r el i ef

under Rul e 1. 730( c) woul d i ndeed i nt er f er e wi t h an or der

uni quel y i n f ur t her ance of t he St at e cour t s abi l i t y to

perf orm t hei r j udi ci al f unct i ons. ( I d. at 7) . 4

Fur t hermore, now t hat f i nal j udgment has been ent ered by

t he st at e cour t , t hi s Cour t i s par t i cul ar l y at t ent i ve t o

Pennzoi l s reasoni ng t hat [ t ] her e i s l i t t l e di f f er ence

bet ween t he St at e s i nt er est i n f or ci ng per sons t o t r ansf er

pr oper t y i n r esponse t o a cour t s j udgment and i n f or ci ng

4 At l east one ot her di st r i ct cour t has empl oyed si mi l arr easoni ng i n abst ai ni ng under Younger af t er f i ndi ngappl i cat i on of t he t hi r d except i onal cat egor y recogni zed byNOPSI and Spr i nt . I n Thomas v. Pi cci one, No. 13- 425, 2014 WL1653066 ( W. D. Pa. Apr . 24, 2014) , a case i n whi ch a pl ai nt i f fpet i t i oned t he f eder al cour t t o or der r ecusal of a j udgepr esi di ng over an under l yi ng st at e act i on, t he di st r i ct cour texpl ai ned: Pennsyl vani a has an i mpor t ant i nt er est i n

pr ot ect i ng t he aut hor i t y and j udi ci al f unct i ons of i t s cour t ,i ncl udi ng t he r ecusal pr ocess. For t hi s cour t t o i nt er posei t sel f i n Pennsyl vani a s r ecusal pr ocess woul d be asi nappr opr i at e as f eder al i nt er vent i on i n a st at e cour t sci vi l cont empt pr ocess, J ui di ce, 430 U. S. at 336, or a st at e spr ocess f or enf or ci ng j udgment s, Pennzoi l , 481 U. S. at 14. Thomas, 2014 WL 1653066, at *5.

31



32/50

per sons t o respond t o t he cour t s process on pai n of

cont empt . Pennzoi l , 481 U. S. at 13. Pennzoi l t hus

r ei nf or ces t he f undament al i mpor t ance t o the st at es of

enf or ci ng t he j udgment s of t hei r cour t s. Pennzoi l , 481 U. S.

at 13. Thi s Cour t accor di ngl y f i nds Pennzoi l i nst r uct i ve i n

concl udi ng t hat i nt er f er i ng wi t h a st at e cour t s abi l i t y t o

enf or ce i t s own j udgment woul d i ndeed i nt er f er e wi t h an or der



The Cour t acknowl edges t he ar gument Dandar advanced

dur i ng t he May 19, 2014, hear i ng t hat t he rel evant j udgment

has not been ent er ed as a resul t of Dandar s cont empt ; t hat

i s, due t o t he Br ennan cour t s Or der gr ant i ng Dandar s

wi t hdr awal f r om t he Br ennan act i on nunc pro tunc, Dandar was

pur ged of hi s cont empt i n st at e cour t . Thus, Dandar ar gues,

i n t he absence of cont empt , 5 t he st at e cour t s order i mposi ng

5 Despi t e t he par t i es comment s on t hi s t opi c at t he hear i ng,t he par t i es have not pr ovi ded a cl ear expl anat i on r egar di ngt he ext ent t o whi ch Dandar was pur ged of hi s contempt f orser vi ng as counsel i n t he Br ennan act i on by way of t hedi st r i ct cour t s or der gr ant i ng nunc pro tunc Dandar s mot i on

t o wi t hdr aw. Notabl y, Dandar s second amended compl ai ntseeks r el i ef f or Def endant s r esor t t o st at e cour t and t hej udi ci al machi nery i n t he Ci r cui t Court f or Pi nel l as Countyas wel l as t he Fl or i da appel l at e cour t s in obtaining, andthen enforcing, the contempt orders against the Plaintiffs. ( Doc. # 45 at 74) ( emphasi s added) . Vi ewi ng t he r el evantst at e cour t or der as a f unct i on of t he st at e cour t s i nher ent

32



33/50

Rul e 1. 730( c) sanct i ons shoul d not const i t ut e an or der



Al t hough t he Cour t pr esumes f or t he pur pose of t he

pr esent Or der t hat t he sanct i ons of whi ch Dandar pr esent l y

compl ai ns ar ose ent i r el y f r om t he st at e cour t s aut hor i t y

under Rul e 1. 730( c) , t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case bl ur t he

l i nes between sanct i ons i mposed pur suant t o t he r ul e and

sanct i ons i mposed t hr ough t he st at e cour t s cont empt

pr ocesses. As pr evi ousl y expl ai ned, even bef or e t he Br ennan

cour t gr ant ed nunc pro tunc Dandar s mot i on t o wi t hdr aw, t he

st at e appel l at e cour t s had al r eady concl uded t hat t he

Pi nel l as Count y Ci r cui t Cour t had t he aut hor i t y t o or der

Dandar s wi t hdr awal f r om t he Br ennan mat t er not onl y as a

r emedy avai l abl e under Rul e 1. 730, but as a consequence of

Dandar s cont empt . ( See Doc. # 45 at 63- 64) ( expl ai ni ng

t hat Fl or i da s Second Di st r i ct Cour t of Appeal uphel d J udge

Beach s Apr i l 12, 2010, or der i mposi ng cont empt sanct i ons

wi t h t he except i on of a damages awar d cal cul at ed i n er r or ) .

cont empt aut hor i t y woul d f r ame t he argument f or abst ent i on i nan even mor e compel l i ng l i ght .

33



34/50

Gi ven the concept ual over l ap bet ween (1) sanct i ons

i mposed pur suant t o t he st at e cour t s cont empt aut hor i t y and

( 2) sanct i ons i mposed pur suant t o t he stat e cour t s aut hor i t y

under Rul e 1. 730( c) , t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he condi t i ons of

t hi s case cl osel y r esembl e t he condi t i ons i n J ui di ce

war r ant i ng abst ent i on. Cor r espondi ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds the

st at e s i nt er est i n t he pr ocess of i mposi ng sanct i ons under

Rul e 1. 730( c) i s sur el y an i mpor t ant i nt er est , as i t i s

t hr ough t hi s pr ocess t hat t he st at e cour t may vi ndi cat e t he

r egul ar oper at i on of i t s j udi ci al syst em, whi ch i ncl udes

f i nal i t y of t he agr eement s r eached upon compl et i on of cour t -

or der ed medi at i on. J ui di ce, 430 U. S. at 335.

Thus, af t er car ef ul l y consi der i ng t he ci r cumst ances

sur r oundi ng the st at e cour t s or der i mposi ng sanct i ons upon

Dandar f or hi s vi ol at i on of t he McPher son set t l ement

agr eement , t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he or der undoubt edl y

i mpl i cat es t he st at e s i mpor t ant i nt er est s i n admi ni st er i ng

cer t ai n aspect s of i t s j udi ci al syst em, and t hat a f eder al

i nj unct i on i n t hi s case woul d not onl y i nt er f er e wi t h t he

execut i on of [ a] st at e j udgment [ ] , but [ i t ] woul d do so on

gr ounds t hat chal l enge t he ver y pr ocess by whi ch t h[ at ]

j udgment [ ] [ was] obt ai ned. Pennzoi l , 481 U. S. at 14. Mor e

speci f i cal l y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat gr ant i ng t he r el i ef Dandar

34



35/50

seeks woul d i mpact pendi ng ci vi l pr oceedi ngs i nvol vi ng

cer t ai n or der s uni quel y i n f ur t her ance of t he st at e cour t s

abi l i t y t o per f or m i t s j udi ci al f unct i ons. Accor di ngl y, t he

i nst ant case pr esent s one of t he except i onal ci r cumst ances

i dent i f i ed i n NOPSI and Spr i nt , and t he Cour t t hus abst ai ns

i n accor dance wi t h Younger .

2. Middlesex County Additional Factors

As expl ai ned above, t he Supr eme Cour t i n Mi ddl esex

Count y ar t i cul at ed t hr ee condi t i ons t o be consi der ed by

f eder al cour t s bef or e i nvoki ng Younger : ( 1) whet her t her e i s

an ongoi ng st at e pr oceedi ng t hat i s j udi ci al i n nat ur e, ( 2)

whet her t he pr oceedi ng i mpl i cat es i mpor t ant st at e i nt er est s,

and ( 3) whet her t her e i s an adequat e oppor t uni t y i n t he st at e

pr oceedi ng t o r ai se const i t ut i onal chal l enges. Mi ddl esex

Count y, 457 U. S. at 432- 37; Spr i nt , 134 S. Ct . at 593.

However , Mi ddl esex Count y f ur t her pr ovi des t hat abst ent i on

woul d be i nappr opr i at e upon a showi ng of bad f ai t h,

harassment , or some other ext r aor di nary ci r cumst ance

j ust i f yi ng i nter vent i on by a f eder al cour t . Mi ddl esex

Count y, 457 U. S. at 435.

I n Spr i nt , t he Supr eme Cour t cl ar i f i ed t hat t hese t hr ee

condi t i ons [are] not di sposi t i ve; t hey [ ar e] , i nst ead,

additional f act or s appr opr i at el y consi der ed by the f eder al

35



36/50

cour t af t er det er mi ni ng t hat a case f i t s wi t hi n one of t he

t hr ee except i onal ci r cumst ances i dent i f i ed i n NOPSI .

Spr i nt , 134 S. Ct . at 593- 94 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Because

t hi s case i ndeed pr esent s an except i onal ci r cumst ance

r ecogni zed by Spr i nt and NOPSI , t he Cour t now t ur ns t o the

t hr ee addi t i onal consi der at i ons ar t i cul at ed i n Mi ddl esex

Count y.

Fi r st of al l , t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he st at e pr oceedi ngs

r el at i ng t o j udi ci al enf or cement of Fl or i da Rul e of Ci vi l

Pr ocedur e 1. 730( c) ar e j udi ci al i n nat ur e, as Dandar seeks t o

avoi d execut i on of a j udgment ent er ed by t he Pi nel l as Count y

Ci r cui t Cour t ar i si ng f r omDandar s vi ol at i on of an agr eement

r eached dur i ng cour t - or der ed medi at i on. Nei t her par t y

cont ends t hat t he st at e pr oceedi ngs ar e anythi ng ot her t han

j udi ci al i n nat ur e.

Secondl y, t he Cour t det er mi nes t hat t he st at e

pr oceedi ngs i mpl i cat e an i mpor t ant st at e i nt er est . The

i mport ance of a st ate i nt erest may be demonst r ated by t he

f act t hat . . . t he pr oceedi ngs ar e necessar y f or t he

vi ndi cat i on of i mpor t ant st at e pol i ci es or t he f unct i oni ng of

t he st at e j udi ci al system. Fi r st Al a. Bank of Mont gomer y,

N. A. v. Par sons St eel , I nc. , 825 F. 2d 1475, 1484 ( 11t h Ci r .

1987) . The Cour t r ecogni zes t hat t hi s case i nvol ves onl y

36



37/50

pr i vat e l i t i gant s and was not br ought wi t h t he ai m of

vi ndi cat i ng i mpor t ant i nt er est s of t he st at e. Rat her , Dandar

br ought t hi s act i on t o avoi d i mposi t i on of a puni t i ve

monet ar y j udgment , cer t ai n t o dest r oy hi s abi l i t y t o seek hi s

l i vel i hood, ( Doc. # 45 at 5) , and has not di r ect l y chal l enged

a st at e st at ut e or pr ocedur al r ul e i n doi ng so.

However , t he Supr eme Cour t s r easoni ng i n J ui di ce and

Pennzoi l under scor es t he i mpor t ance to t he st at es of

enf or ci ng t he or der s and j udgment s of t hei r cour t s. As

expl ai ned above, t hi s Cour t f i nds t hat St at es have i mpor t ant

i nt er est s i n admi ni st er i ng cer t ai n aspects of t hei r j udi ci al

syst ems, Pennzoi l , 481 U. S. at 12, and cor r espondi ngl y that

a st at e cour t s order i mposi ng sanct i ons under Rul e 1. 730( c)

const i t ut es a pr oceedi ng necessar y f or . . . t he f unct i oni ng

of t he st at e j udi ci al syst em. Par sons St eel , 825 F. 2d at

1484. The Cour t t hus det er mi nes t hat t he r el evant s t at e

pr oceedi ngs i mpl i cat e an i mpor t ant st at e i nt er est .

Last l y, t he Cour t consi der s whet her t her e i s an adequat e

oppor t uni t y i n t he st at e pr oceedi ngs t o r ai se const i t ut i onal

chal l enges. Mi ddl esex Count y, 457 U. S. at 435. Dandar has

pr ovi ded no aut hor i t y i ndi cat i ng t hat Fl or i da s st at e cour t s

l ack the power t o consi der hi s const i t ut i onal chal l enges.

I ndeed, Dandar appeal ed t o Fl or i da s Second Di st r i ct Cour t of

37



38/50

Appeal J udge Beach s J une 10, 2009, order di r ect i ng Dandar t o

cease r epr esent at i on i n the Br ennan mat t er , and al so appeal ed

J udge Beach s Apr i l 12, 2010, order f i ndi ng Dandar i n ci vi l

cont empt and i mposi ng sanct i ons. ( Doc. # 45 at 20, 26) .

Dandar of f er s no expl anat i on as t o why hi s const i t ut i onal

chal l enges r el at i ng t o t hese or der s wer e not r ai sed at t he

t i me of t hose appeal s. Rat her , Dandar expl ai ns t hat , i n

appeal i ng t he J une 10, 2009, or der , he ar gued t hat t he

set t l ement agr eement was unenf orceabl e as i nt erpr eted by

J udge Beach because i t ( 1) vi ol at es t he Rul es Regul at i ng t he

Fl or i da Bar ; ( 2) i s cont r ar y t o a Fl or i da Bar publ i shed Et hi cs

Opi ni on . . . [ ( 3) ] i s voi d based on Fl or i da publ i c pol i cy;

and [ ( 4) ] i s cont r ar y t o bot h st at e and Fl or i da f eder al case

l aw. ( I d. at 20) . I n appeal i ng t he Apr i l 12, 2010, or der ,

Dandar ar gued t hat t he Ci r cui t Cour t f or Pi nel l as Count y

l acked subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he [ set t l ement

agr eement ] t o enf or ce i t s provi si ons; t hat t he agr eement

cannot be const r ued as a pr act i ce r est r i ct i on si nce t hat woul d

be voi d as vi ol at i ve of t he Rul es Regul at i ng t he Fl or i da Bar ;

t hat onl y t he Supr eme Cour t of Fl or i da can pl ace r est r i ct i ons

on a l awyer s pract i ce of l aw; and t hat Dandar cannot be hel d

i n cont empt of an or der t o wi t hdr aw f r om t he f eder al case

38



39/50


40/50

Wi t hout any i ndi cat i on t o t he cont r ar y, t he Cour t f i nds

t hat t her e has been at al l r el evant t i mes an adequat e

oppor t uni t y i n t he st at e pr oceedi ngs f or Dandar t o r ai se hi s

const i t ut i onal chal l enges, and t hus t hat Younger abst ent i on

appl i es i n t hi s case.

3. YoungerExceptions Inapplicable

The Supreme Cour t i n Younger expl ai ned t hat abst ent i on

mi ght be i nappr opr i at e i n cases of bad f ai t h or har assment ,

or under ot her ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances i n whi ch t he

necessar y i r r eparabl e i nj ur y can be shown. Younger , 401

U. S. at 53.

The Supreme Cour t det er mi ned t hat t he bad f ai t h

except i on di d not appl y i n J ui di ce because the except i on was

nei t her al l eged i n appel l ees compl ai nt [ n] or pr oved by

t hei r evi dence, and, al t hough the compl ai nt coul d be

const r ued t o make such al l egat i ons as t o t he cr edi t or s, t her e

ar e no compar abl e al l egat i ons wi t h r espect t o appel l ant

j ust i ces who i ssued t he cont empt or der s. I d. The Supreme

Cour t f ur t her expl ai ned t hat [ t ] he except i on may not be

ut i l i zed unl ess i t i s al l eged and pr oved t hat t hey ar e

enf or ci ng t he cont empt pr ocedur es i n bad f ai t h or ar e

mot i vat ed by a desi r e t o har ass. I d.

40



41/50

I n det er mi ni ng whet her such an except i on appl i es i n t he

i nst ant act i on, t he Cour t not es that subsequent cases have

r eveal ed t he Younger except i ons t o be ext r emel y l i mi t ed i n

scope. The Supr eme Cour t i n Moor e v. Si ms, 442 U. S. 415, 433

( 1979) , expl ai ned t hat [ t ] he most extensi ve expl anat i on of

t hose ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances t hat mi ght const i t ut e

gr eat , i mmedi at e, and i r r epar abl e har m i s t hat i n Kugl er v.

Hel f ant , 421 U. S. 117 ( 1975) . Al t hough i t s di scussi on i s

wi t h r ef er ence t o st at e cri mi nal pr oceedi ngs, i t i s f ul l y

appl i cabl e i n t hi s cont ext as wel l [ : ]

Onl y i f ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances r ender t hest at e cour t i ncapabl e of f ai r l y and f ul l yadj udi cat i ng t he f eder al i ssues bef or e i t , cant her e be any rel axat i on of t he def er ence t o beaccor ded t o t he st at e cr i mi nal pr ocess. The ver ynat ur e of ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances, of cour se,makes i t i mpossi bl e t o ant i ci pat e and def i ne ever ysi t uat i on t hat mi ght creat e a suf f i ci ent t hr eat ofsuch gr eat , i mmedi at e, and i r r epar abl e i nj ur y as t owar r ant i nt er vent i on i n st at e cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs.But what ever el se i s r equi r ed, such ci r cumst ancesmust be ext r aor di nar y i n t he sense of cr eat i ng anext r aor di nar i l y pr essi ng need f or i mmedi at e f eder alequi t abl e r el i ef , not mer el y i n t he sense ofpr esent i ng a hi ghl y unusual f act ual si t uat i on.

Moor e, 442 U. S. at 433 ( quot i ng Kugl er , 421 U. S. at 124- 25) .

Dandar di d not argue i n r esponse t o Def endant s mot i on

t o di smi ss t hat an except i on t o Younger abst ent i on shoul d

appl y i n t hi s case. I nst ead, Dandar er r oneousl y r ej ect ed t he

pr ospect of Younger abst ent i on by st at i ng t hat [ b] ecause

41



42/50

t hi s i nst ant mat t er was f i l ed bef or e any f i nal j udgment i n

t he st at e cour t , nei t her Rooker - Fel dman nor t he Younger

doct r i ne r equi r e di smi ssal or abst ent i on. ( Doc. # 54 at 3) .

However , i n hi s post - r emand br i ef , Dandar ar gues t hat

Def endant s i mmedi ate enf orcement of t he st ate cour t j udgment

i n excess of $1 mi l l i on woul d cause hi m i r r epar abl e

i nj ur y. ( Doc. # 81 at 2) . Dandar al so r emi nds t he Cour t

t hat he has al l eged bad f ai t h and a vi ol at i on of r i ght s

pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983. ( I d. ) . However , t he

ci r cumst ances of t hi s case do not r i se t o t he l evel of

war r ant i ng f eder al i nt er vent i on i n t he st at e pr oceedi ngs. I n

so f i ndi ng, t he Cour t adher es t o t he Supr eme Cour t s

expl anat i on i n Kl uger t hat [ o] nl y i f ext r aor di nar y

ci r cumst ances render the state court incapable of fairly and

fully adjudicating the federal issues before it, can t her e be

any r el axat i on of t he def er ence to be accor ded t o t he st at e

. . . pr ocess. Kl uger , 421 U. S. at 124 ( emphasi s added) .

The Court f i nds t hat , even i f Dandar s conspi r acy

al l egat i ons wer e suf f i ci ent t o br i ng t he conduct of J udge

Beach and, by extensi on, t he st ate cour t pr oceedi ngs over

whi ch he pr esi ded, wi t hi n t he i nt ended meani ng of bad f ai t h

f or t he pur pose of t he Younger except i on, Dandar has st i l l

f ai l ed t o al l ege t hat t he st at e pr oceedi ngs wer e ent i r el y

42



43/50

adj udi cat ed by cour t s i ncapabl e of f ul l y and f ai r l y

consi der i ng t he f eder al i ssues bef or e t hem. That i s, Dandar

al l eges t hat t he conspi r acy i nvol ved onl y the pr i vat e

Def endant s and J udge Beach. Dandar has not al l eged t hat t he

j udges of Fl or i da s Second Di st r i ct Cour t of Appeal or t he

Fl or i da Supr eme Cour t , i n r evi ewi ng J udge Beach s r el evant

det er mi nat i ons, have engaged i n si mi l ar mi sconduct . Thus,

t hi s Cour t f i nds t hat Dandar has f ai l ed t o al l ege such

ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances t hat woul d war r ant f eder al

i nt er vent i on i n t he st at e pr oceedi ngs. The Cour t accor di ngl y

f i nds t hat no except i on t o the Younger abst ent i on doct r i ne

appl i es i n t hi s case, and t hat t he Cour t must t her ef or e per mi t

t he st at e cour t t o pr oceed wi t hout f eder al j udi ci al

i nt er f er ence.

B. Additional Considerations Favoring Abstention

I n det er mi ni ng t hat Younger abst ent i on appl i es i n t hi s

case, t he Cour t f i nds per suasi ve cer t ai n cases i n ot her

j ur i sdi ct i ons appl yi ng Younger wher e a pl ai nt i f f al l eged i n

a Sect i on 1983 act i on t hat a st at e j udge, or pr i vat e

i ndi vi dual s conspi r i ng wi t h a st at e j udge, depr i ved t he

pl ai nt i f f of hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s. See, f or exampl e,

Ni l sson v. Rupper t , Br onson & Chi car el l i Co. , L. P. A. , 888

F. 2d 452, 454 ( 6t h Ci r . 1989) ( Al t hough t he st at e case

43



44/50

i nvol ves onl y pr i vat e par t i es, i t i s Ni l sson s al l egat i on of

a conspi r acy i nvol vi ng t he subver si on of Ohi o s l egal system

t hat i s t he genesi s of t he const i t ut i onal cl ai ms made i n t he

pr esent case, and i t i s i n t he r esol ut i on of t hese cl ai ms

t hat Ohi o has a gr eat i nt er est . . . . [ Thus, ] we f i nd t hat

t he Younger doct r i ne appl i es . . . . ) , and Tast v. Dean, 182

F. App x 748, 749- 50 ( 10t h Ci r . 2006) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he

Younger abst ent i on doct r i ne precl uded a di st r i ct cour t s

adj udi cat i on of a Secti on 1983 cl ai m f i l ed by a pl ai nt i f f

agai nst t he st at e cour t j udge then- pr esi di ng over t he

pl ai nt i f f s st at e t or t act i on) . 6

Addi t i onal l y, t hi s Cour t i s mi ndf ul of t he El event h

Ci r cui t s war ni ng r egar di ng enj oi ni ng cer t ai n st at e cour t

pr oceedi ngs r el at ed t o t hi s ver y act i on. I n Est at e of Br ennan

v. Chur ch of Sci ent ol ogy Fl ag Ser vi ce Or gani zat i on, 645 F. 3d

1267 ( 11t h Ci r . 2011) , t he El event h Ci r cui t vacat ed an

i nj unct i on pr emi sed on t he Al l Wr i t s Act ent er ed by the

di st r i ct cour t . Al t hough t hi s Cour t r ecogni zes t hat t he ant i -

i nj unct i on st at ut e at i ssue i n t he Br ennan deci si on woul d not

6 The Cour t acknowl edges t hat both of t hese cases were deci dedbef or e Spr i nt s r ecent cl ar i f i cat i on of t he l aw on Youngerabst ent i on. Nonet hel ess, t he Cour t r ef er ences t hese casesf or t hei r di scussi ons per t ai ni ng t o t he non- di sposi t i veMi ddl esex Count y f act or s as wel l as t hei r gener alconsi der at i ons of comi t y.

44



45/50

necessar i l y oper at e t o bar t hi s Cour t s i ssuance of an

i nj unct i on pur suant t o Sect i on 1983, t he Cour t f i nds t he

El event h Ci r cui t s gener al war ni ng equal l y appl i cabl e i n t hi s

case: a di st r i ct cour t [ s] convi cti on t hat a st at e

pr oceedi ng has r eached or i s r eachi ng an er r oneous r esul t

does not al one war r ant an i nj unct i on agai nst t hose

pr oceedi ngs. I d. at 1277. Thus, i r r espect i ve of t hi s

Cour t s convi ct i ons r egar di ng the pr oceedi ngs i mposi ng

sanct i ons agai nst Dandar i n st at e cour t , an i nj unct i on cannot

i ssue wher e abst ent i on i s appr opr i at e.

III. Application to Dandars Claims

A. Declaratory Judgment Act

Dandar l i st s t he f ol l owi ng as Cl ai ms f or Rel i ef under

Count I of t he Compl ai nt :

( a) For a decl ar at i on t hat Pl ai nt i f f s cannot besanct i oned by a st at e cour t f or f i l i ng andpar t i ci pat i ng i n a f eder al act i on, whet heror not t he f i l i ng of t he f eder al acti on i si n br each of a pr i vat e set t l ement agr eement ;

( b) For an or der requiring [ Sci ent ol ogy] toterminate the state proceedings;

( c) For an emergency pr el i mi nary or der wi t h asubsequent per manent order enjoining[ Sci ent ol ogy] , i t s agent s or at t or neys, andanyone act i ng i n concer t f or i t , i ncl udi ngany ot her Sci ent ol ogy ent i t y, from pursuingthe state court action and/ or i nst i t ut i ngany act i on agai nst Pl ai nt i f f s wi t h r espectt o t he subj ect mat t er of t hi s act i on; [ and]

45



46/50

( d) For Pl ai nt i f f s damages, bot h compensator y

and puni t i ve; . . . .

( Doc. # 45 at 5) ( emphasi s added) .

As di scussed at l engt h above, t he St at es have i mport ant

i nt er est s i n admi ni st er i ng cer t ai n aspects of t hei r j udi ci al

syst ems. Pennzoi l , 481 U. S. at 12- 13. A decl ar at or y

j udgment i ssued by t hi s Cour t r equi r i ng Sci entol ogy t o

t ermi nate t he st ate pr oceedi ngs ( Doc. # 45 at 5) woul d

ef f ect i vel y enj oi n t he st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs ent i r el y, t hus

i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he execut i on of a st at e cour t j udgment and

cor r espondi ngl y hi nder i ng t he admi ni st r at i on of t he st at e

j udi ci al syst em. The Cour t f i nds t hat i mper mi ssi bl e

i nt er f er ence woul d r esul t f r om gr ant i ng Dandar s cl ai ms f or

r el i ef under Count I . Accor di ngl y, Younger abst ent i on

appl i es t o t he decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef sought , Ol d

Republ i c, 124 F. 3d at 1261, and the Cour t gr ant s Def endant s

mot i on t o di smi ss as t o Count I .

B. 42 U.S.C. 1983

Wi t hi n Count I I of t he Compl ai nt , Dandar l i st s t he

f ol l owi ng Cl ai ms f or Rel i ef :

( a) Ent er pr el i mi nar y and per manent i nj unct i onsenjoining the Defendants, t hei r of f i cer s ,empl oyees, agent s, at t orneys andsuccessor s, and al l per sons i n act i veconcer t or par t i ci pat i ng wi t h any of t hem,

46



47/50

from actively assisting the state judges or

courts in their efforts to interfere with

the Plaintiffs rights by f i l i ng any sui tbased on t he [ Set t l ement Agr eement ] , by

conducting any further hearings, or entry ofany additional orders or judgments, and

enjoining the execution of any judgment.

( b) Gr ant t r i al by j ur y.( c) Awar d compensat or y damages agai nst each

Def endant .

( d) Award puni t i ve damages agai nst eachdef endant .

( e) Ent er a decl ar at or y j udgment decl ar i ng t hatt he Def endant s act i ons vi ol at ed t hePl ai nt i f f s Fi r s t , Fi f th, Si xth, andFour t eent h Amendment r i ght s.

( Doc. # 45 at 33) ( emphasi s added) .

As i n t he cont ext of Count I , t he Cour t f i nds t hat

Younger abst ent i on r equi r es di smi ssal of Dandar s cl ai ms f or

decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef under Count I I as wel l .

However , t o t he ext ent t hat Dandar seeks damages agai nst t he

Def endant s under Sect i on 1983, Younger i s not necessar i l y a

j ur i sdi ct i onal bar . See Deaki ns v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193,

202 ( 1988) ( r eser vi ng t he i ssue as t o whet her Younger appl i es

t o Sect i on 1983 damages act i ons) ; Doby v. St r engt h, 758 F. 2d

1405, 1406 ( 11t h Ci r . 1985) ( appl yi ng Younger and order i ng a

st ay, r at her t han di smi ssal , of a Sect i on 1983 damages cl ai m) ;

St oddar d v. Fl a. Bd. of Bar Exami ner s, 509 F. Supp. 2d 1117,

47



48/50

1123 ( N. D. Fl a. 2006) ( Cl ai ms f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef pr oper l y

may be di smi ssed based on Younger , but under t he l aw of t hi s

ci r cui t , damages cl ai ms i n anal ogous ci r cumst ances shoul d be

st ayed, not di smi ssed. ) .

Thi s Cour t f i nds t hat st ayi ng r at her t han di smi ssi ng

Dandar s Sect i on 1983 cl ai mf or damages at t hi s j unct ur e wi l l

al l ow t he par al l el st at e pr oceedi ng t o go f or war d wi t hout

i nt er f er ence f r om i t s f eder al si bl i ng, whi l e enf or ci ng t he

dut y of f eder al cour t s t o assume j ur i sdi ct i on wher e

j ur i sdi ct i on proper l y exi st s. Deaki ns, 484 U. S. at 202- 03.

Thi s Cour t t hus decl i nes t o r esol ve t he mer i t s of Dandar s

Sect i on 1983 cl ai m f or damages, and accor di ngl y st ays thi s

cl ai m, pendi ng t he compl et i on of t he st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs.

IV. Conclusion

Af t er r econsi der at i on i n l i ght of Spr i nt , t he Cour t

modi f i es i t s previ ous Or der on Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss

as set f or t h above. The Cour t f i nds that abst ent i on under

Younger i s st i l l appropr i at e, as t he i nj unct i ve and

decl ar at or y r el i ef Dandar seeks pur suant t o t he Decl ar at or y

J udgment Act i n Count I of t he second amended compl ai nt woul d

ef f ect i vel y enj oi n t he st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs. The Cour t

t hus grant s Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss as t o Count I .

Si mi l ar l y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Younger abst ent i on i s

48



49/50

appr opr i at e wi t h r egar d t o Dandar s cl ai ms f or i nj unct i ve and

decl ar at or y r el i ef under Sect i on 1983. The Cour t t hus gr ant s

Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss t o t he extent t hat Dandar seeks

i nj unct i ve and decl ar at or y r el i ef under Count I I . However ,

t o t he ext ent t hat Dandar s second amended compl ai nt st ates

a cl ai m f or damages agai nst Def endant s under Sect i on 1983,

Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss i s deni ed, and Dandar s cl ai m

f or damages under Sect i on 1983 i s s t ayed pendi ng t he out come

of t he st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs.

Accor di ngl y, i t i s

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

( 1) Def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss ( Doc. # 48) i s GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part as det ai l ed her ei n.

( 2) The Cl er k i s di r ect ed t o STAY andADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

t hi s case pendi ng f ur t her or der of t he Cour t .

( 3) On or bef or e J une 27, 2014, t he par t i es ar e di r ect ed t o

advi se t he Cour t of t he

Documents

Dandar v. Scientology: Judge Covington order