Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Stephen Kerr EUGSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paula LITTLEWOOD, Executive Director, WSBA, in her official capacity; Douglas J. Ende, Director of the WSBA of Disciplinary Counsel, in his official capacity; Francesca D’Angelo, Disciplinary Counsel, WSBA Office of Disciplinary Counsel, in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Stephen Eugster appeals the dismissal of his due process challenge to the Washington State Bar Association’s (WSBA’s) lawyer discipline system. We affirm.
1. Eugster alleged that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he faced an impending disciplinary proceeding under the WSBA system he claims is unconstitutional. On those facts, he may have had the requisite injury-in-fact for Article III standing. See Canatella v. State of California, 304 F.3d 843, 853 (9th Cir. 2002).
The disciplinary matter that spurred Eugster’s suit was resolved, however, through a stipulated 60-day suspension that ended in July 2017. Eugster’s complaint does not allege that he will be subjected to the WSBA’s disciplinary system again in the future. Absent such allegations, he cannot “demonstrate an appreciable likelihood that [WSBA] will do anything in the future to violate his rights.” Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (July 2, 1992). Eugster therefore lacks the “actual or threatened injury” necessary to bring his challenge. See id.
2. Even if we did have jurisdiction over Eugster’s due process challenge, he would be precluded from asserting it. Eugster’s first disciplinary matter was fully adjudicated by the Washington Supreme Court. See In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wash. 2d 293, 209 P.3d 435 (2009) (en banc). Washington law determines the preclusive effects of that judgment on Eugster’s later assertion of the same or similar claims. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003). The Washington Court of Appeals has determined, as a matter of state law, that the 2009 judgment precludes Eugster from bringing a due process challenge similar to the one underlying his present action. Eugster v. WSBA, 198 Wash. App. 758, 397 P.3d 131 , review denied, 189 Wash. 2d 1018, 404 P.3d 493 (2017). We would defer to that interpretation of Washington law. See Ryman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 505 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 2007).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-35542
Decided: May 29, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)