New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Legislative Privilege Waived by State House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader When They Intervened in Case Challenging Voting Laws And Putting Their Movtives At Issue

Download PDF

Petersen v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Ariz. (In re Toma), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31250 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2023):

MEMORANDUM*

Petitioners Ben Toma and Warren Petersen (collectively, Petitioners) intervened as defendants in an action challenging Arizona H.B. 2243 and H.B. 2492 (Voting Laws), and invoked their privilege after receiving Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The district court found that Petitioners "waived their [legislative] privilege by intervening to fully defend the Voting Laws and putting their motives at issue."

Petitioners now seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to withdraw its discovery order requiring them to produce certain communications and to submit to depositions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and we deny the petition.

Mandamus is a "drastic" remedy reserved for "extraordinary situations." Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). A petitioner must demonstrate that the "right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable." Bozic v. United States Dist., 888 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation and [*8]  internal quotation marks omitted).

We consider five factors when examining a petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus: whether (1) Petitioners have "no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief . . . desire[d]"; (2) Petitioners "will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal"; (3) the "district court's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law"; (4) the "order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules"; and (5) the "order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression." Bauman, 557 F.2d at 654-55 (citations omitted). While all five factors are not required to be met, "the absence of factor three . . . will always defeat a petition for mandamus." Sussex v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Nev., 781 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2015), as amended (citation omitted).

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Petitioners waived their legislative privilege by voluntarily intervening and putting their intent at issue by denying Plaintiffs' allegations. "Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review. . . ." Van Dusen v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Ariz., 654 F.3d 838, 841 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[W]e must have a definite and firm conviction that the district court's interpretation was incorrect." Id. [*9]  (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). There is no precedent in this circuit resolving the issue of whether Petitioners' voluntary involvement in Plaintiffs' action resulted in a waiver of their legislative privilege. "Because no prior Ninth Circuit authority prohibited the course taken by the district court, its ruling is not clearly erroneous. . . ." Morgan v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (In re Morgan), 506 F.3d 705, 713 (9th Cir. 2007).

To the extent Petitioners contend that the requested discovery is not relevant, the district court did not explicitly rule on that separate issue. In any event, an order about the relevance of proposed discovery is not normally a ruling that would warrant the extraordinary relief of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice