United States v. 2012-09-25 | 11-55044 | PHILIP EDWARD KAY V. | nonprecedential | memorandum…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PHILIP EDWARD KAY, attorney
disciplinary matter,
Philip Edward Kay,
Appellant.
No. 11-55044
D.C. No. 2:10-mc-00334-ABC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Philip Edward Kay, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order imposing reciprocal discipline on him in light of Kay’s suspension from the
practice of law by the California Supreme Court. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d
1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-55044 2
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reciprocal
discipline against Kay because he failed to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that he was deprived of due process during the state proceedings; that
there was insufficient proof of the misconduct that resulted in his suspension from
the state bar; or that grave injustice would result from the imposition of reciprocal
discipline. See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing limited
grounds for an attorney subject to discipline by another court to avoid a federal
court’s imposition of reciprocal discipline, and setting forth attorney’s burden); see
also In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (state court
factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness).
Kay’s contention that the district court violated his due process rights when
imposing reciprocal discipline is unpersuasive because the district court
proceedings met due process requirements. See In re Kramer, 193 F.3d 1131,
1133 (9th Cir. 1999) (due process provided when district court issues an order to
show cause to the respondent attorney and reviews the state record).
Kay’s motions for judicial notice and for permission to file a supplemental
brief are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --