A long-shot federal lawsuit that accuses judges, lawyers and other professionals in San Diego County family court of engaging in a wide-ranging racketeering scheme to run up legal fees and court charges was dismissed but will get a review by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case was filed three years ago by the California Coalition for Families and Children, a San Diego group that accused family court participants of conspiring to delay cases and impose orders that drive up costs in divorce and custody fights.

“The divorce industry nationwide has been taking advantage of families and children for decades through encouraging harmful conflict and needless over-lawyering, fraudulent psychology and conflict-inducing ‘appointed counsel,’” coalition executive director Colbern Stuart said in a news release.

U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo initially rejected the argument, going so far as to admonish plaintiffs for submitting an initial complaint of 175 pages and more than 1,100 pages of exhibits.


The judge recommended they refile the allegations in a more standard format, but the amended complaint was 251 pages and with attachments totaled more than 1,600 pages.

“Some of plaintiffs’ assertions are so implausible as to be offensive,” the judge wrote in July 2014, when she rejected the case for a second time. The restated claim “is even longer than the original and remains unmanageable, argumentative, confusing, and frequently incomprehensible.”

The coalition acknowledged its brief was long and complicated — but noted that the law is, too.

Stuart is a former attorney who was disbarred in 2012 after a misdemeanor conviction related to his own divorce case. He was convicted of harassing or threatening his ex-wife in a barrage of more than 20 emails, then failing to comply with disciplinary rules imposed by the state bar.


Along with the coalition, which he incorporated in Delaware as a public-benefit corporation in 2013, Stuart is a co-plaintiff in the racketeering suit, known as California Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Association et al.

The complaint names more than 50 defendants, including the San Diego Superior Court, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Council on Judicial Performance, the National Family Justice Alliance and numerous judges, lawyers and therapists who help determine custody placements. It also accuses Sheriff William Gore and San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith of participating in the illegal enterprise.

Among other things, the coalition is asking the appeals court to limit the immunity granted to judges and to eliminate immunity in family court cases for judges and “custody evaluators” who help decide where to place children in divorce cases.

The case involves a phalanx of attorneys, most of whom argued in court filings that the case should be summarily dismissed for a variety of legal reasons. None of the defense lawyers contacted by The San Diego Union-Tribune agreed to be interviewed about the case.


“This issue is still in litigation, and it would be inappropriate for her to make any comment at this time,” San Diego courts spokeswoman Karen Dalton said on behalf of Kristine Nesthus, a lawyer for the Superior Court who is a co-defendant in the case.

In an 11-page filing submitted to Judge Bencivengo two years ago, attorney Matthew Green said the coalition’s lawsuit failed to comply with established pleading standards. It also noted that claims against the state or arms of the state are barred by the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“A mere allegation of conspiracy, without factual sufficiency, is insufficient,” wrote Green, who represented many of the judges named in the suit. The complaint “fails to allege facts with sufficient particularity showing a conspiracy involving any judicial defendant.”

Coalition member Eileen Theofanous Lasher said she saw plenty of examples of judges, attorneys and others working together to extend her divorce case, which concluded in 2015 after 17 years in litigation.


She likened the family court system to an illegal “transfer of wealth” and ongoing financial crime.

“There is an excessive amount of cases that are not being resolved,” said Lasher, who spent more than $450,000 on her divorce. “The court is supposed to be fair and equitable and make decisions in the best interests of the children — not in the best interests of attorneys’ wallets.”

Until this week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court had scheduled oral arguments in the case for next Wednesday. Stuart and other coalition members were planning to convene in Pasadena to watch the proceeding unfold.

On Monday, the court issued an order removing the verbal presentations from the docket, saying it will review legal filings instead. Stuart did not respond to questions Tuesday about the court order.


University of San Diego law professor Shaun Martin said the court canceling of a previously scheduled oral argument does not usually bode well for the appealing party.

“Sometimes the 9th Circuit lets even frivolous appeals be orally argued just so the losing party will feel like it has been heard,” Martin said. “Other times, the 9th Circuit deprives silly appeals of oral argument so the losing party isn’t incentivized to file future silly appeals.”

A ruling from the appellate judges could be issued next Wednesday or any time thereafter. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.