Castro v. State Bar
Filed 7/12/06 Castro v. State Bar CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| JUAN C. CASTRO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B187377 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC335758) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.
Juan C. Castro, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Marie M. Moffat and Colin P. Wong, Office of the General Counsel, The State Bar of California, for Defendants and Respondents.
_______________________
A former attorney appeals from an order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer filed by the State Bar of California and its deputy trial counsel. Among other arguments, he contends the disciplinary stipulation he entered into with the State Bar created a contract not subject to the Supreme Court's plenary jurisdiction. We affirm the order of dismissal based on our conclusion that the superior court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff and appellant Juan C. Castro was admitted to the practice of law in this state by the Supreme Court of California on May 26, 1998. Thereafter, defendant and respondent the State Bar investigated 23 complaints lodged against Castro. Seven of the complaints were later dismissed. On September 6, 2001 and April 17, 2002, the State Bar issued notices of disciplinary charges to Castro. On December 18, 2001 and January 7, 2002, it issued notices to show cause to commence formal disciplinary proceedings and hearings against Castro.
In the course of the proceedings, the State Bar allegedly offered to terminate all disciplinary actions against Castro if he would voluntarily resign his bar membership. According to Castro, the State Bar indicated that it would only consider the prior charged misconduct if he reapplied for admission after a five-year waiting period. Defendant and respondent Jayne Kim, Deputy Trial Counsel for the State Bar, allegedly represented to Castro that â€
