Justin S. Beck v. State of California

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 14, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00164
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Justin S. BECK, Case No.: 23-cv-0164-AGS-DDL 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT (ECF 2) AND DENYING 5 v. REMAINING MOTIONS AS MOOT 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF 12, 18, 20, 26)

7 Defendants. 8

9 This complaint suffers from the same fatal flaws that doomed those in plaintiff’s past 10 cases—it is unintelligible. See, e.g., Beck v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Cty. of Orange, 11 23-cv-0882-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2023), ECF 16 (order dismissing complaint); 12 Beck v. Catanzarite Law Corp., 22-cv-1616-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023), ECF 35 13 (same). So it too must be dismissed. 14 BACKGROUND 15 This lawsuit and several related ones1 seem to have arisen in response to a securities 16 action against plaintiff Justin Beck in 2018. According to Beck, attorney Kenneth 17 Catanzarite (a defendant here) and his shareholder clients brought that securities case “to 18 defraud” Beck. (ECF 2, at 16.) When Beck filed disciplinary complaints against 19 Catanzarite, the California State Bar (another defendant) allegedly declined to investigate. 20 (Id. at 16, 33.) 21 Beck accuses the State of California (also a defendant) of engaging in a pattern of 22 racketeering activity because it purportedly “used and invested income from the 23

24 25 1 This is one of five cases involving similar parties and allegations. See Beck v. Kenneth Catanzarite, No. 30-2020-01145998 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed May 26, 2020); Beck 26 v. State Bar of Cal., No. 30-2021-01237499 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 21, 2021); Beck v. 27 Catanzarite Law Corp., No. 22-cv-1616-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal. filed Oct. 19, 2022); Beck v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Cty. of Orange, No. 23-cv-0882-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal. filed May 15, 28 1 taxpayer[s]” into the State Bar, “lacked direct supervision” of the State Bar, and had no 2 “clearly articulated State policy which allowed the racketeering activity to favor the State 3 Bar of California enterprise.” (Id. at 42, 51.) It is unclear how the United States of America 4 and the U.S. Attorney General (more defendants) fit into Beck’s complaint. They do not 5 appear as defendants in any cause of action, and Beck even requests that they intervene 6 and stop their codefendant, the State Bar. (Id. at 1–2, 38–59.) At any rate, Beck seeks 7 millions of dollars in actual damages, billions of dollars in punitive damages, and peculiar 8 forms of injunctive relief between codefendants. (Id. at 54–59.) 9 Various defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. (ECF 12, 13, 20, 26.) 10 In response, Beck filed a purported 265-page cross-motion for sanctions against the State 11 Bar. (ECF 18.) 12 DISCUSSION 13 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is 14 entitled to relief” with allegations that are “simple, concise, and direct.” See Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(1); see also Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199–1200 (9th Cir. 2003) 16 (requiring Rule 12(b)(6) to “be read in conjunction with Rule 8”). In particular, the 17 complaint must give “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 18 rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (cleaned up). District courts 19 may “sua sponte dismiss a complaint” that fails to “include a ‘short and plain statement of 20 the claim.’” Long v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1173 21 (D. Haw. 2012). 22 In his 60-page, 335-paragraph amended complaint, Beck alleges claims of criminal 23 racketeering as well as antitrust and civil-rights violations. (ECF 2.) The complaint is 24 unfocused and difficult to follow. Under a heading titled “Pattern of Racketeering 25 Activity,” for example, paragraphs 58 through 80 contain allegations against nonparties 26 and reference exhibits that were not attached. (Id. at 12–16.) It is unclear which claims are 27 asserted against which defendants, particularly for the United States and the U.S. Attorney 28 General. Adding to the confusion, Beck also seems to bring one of his claims against the 1 State and State Bar “on behalf of” their codefendant, the United States. (Id. at 58.) 2 Much like Beck’s past complaints, this one is “disjointed and replete with lengthy 3 excerpts from various state and federal statutes, repetitive conclusory allegations of 4 wrongdoing (including against nonparties to this action) that employ a mishmash of 5 unintelligible legal jargon, and protracted digressions that appear to have little bearing on 6 any legal claims Beck may be asserting.” Beck v. Catanzarite Law Corp., No. 22-cv-1616- 7 BAS-DDL, 2023 WL 1999485, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2023). And “despite listing some 8 cognizable causes of action, the Amended Complaint is bereft of non-conclusory 9 allegations that show how each Defendant’s conduct was actionable thereunder and how 10 Beck himself was injured by such conduct.” Id. Because that complaint—like the current 11 complaint—was “devoid of cogent factual details that present a story that holds together 12 about the subject matter of the instant case,” it was sua sponte dismissed for failing to 13 comply with Rule 8. Id. (cleaned up). 14 Likewise, because this complaint is nearly impossible to follow and far from simple, 15 concise, and direct, it warrants dismissal under Rule 8. See United States ex rel. Cafasso v. 16 Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases 17 upholding dismissals of pleadings that were “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting, 18 ambiguous, and unintelligible,” “highly repetitious,” and comprised of “incomprehensible 19 rambling”); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177–79 (affirming Rule 8 dismissal of a 53-page 20 complaint presenting “long-winded tales of municipal conspiracy and police misconduct,” 21 that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant,” and 22 “failed properly to notify the individual defendants of the legal claims they faced” (cleaned 23 up)). 24 Because it’s conceivable that Beck may cure the complaint’s deficiencies, the Court 25 grants him leave to amend. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 26 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice 27 so requires” (quotation marks omitted)). 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 Thus, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. All other pending motions 3 DENIED AS MOOT. 4 By October 12, 2023, Beck may file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint 5 ||must be complete, without reference to the original pleading, and any claims Beck fails to 6 || reallege may be waived. See CivLR 15.1(a); Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 7 Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend may be considered 8 || ‘““waived” if not repled). As noted in dismissing one of Beck’s similar complaints, the Court 9 || “strongly encourages Beck to limit any Second Amended Complaint to 35 pages or less.” 10 || Beck, 2023 WL 1999485, at *10. Any future complaint “must intelligibly inform 11 || Defendants—and this Court—who violated his federally protected rights, what facts show 12 || that his federally protected rights were violated, when such violation occurred, where such 13 || violation occurred, and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Jd. 14 The Clerk is directed to close this case. If Beck files an amended complaint by the 15 || deadline, the Clerk will reopen this case. Otherwise, on October 13, 2023, the Clerk will 16 |/issue a judgment. The Clerk may only issue the judgment sooner if Beck affirmatively 17 ||notifies the Court that he will not amend. 18 Dated: September 14, 2023 19 4 f 0 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28