Peyman Roshan v. Melanie J. Lawrence, et al.
1. At what point or points in time should federal courts analyze the factors for application of Younger abstention? There are at least six views expressed in the case law, five of which are present in Ninth Circuit case law:
a. Federal courts only look at the time the complaint is filed, a view set out in the Ninth Circuit's en banc authority and many other cases.
b. Federal courts look at the time the complaint is filed and perform a second check, as accepted in some Ninth Circuit case law, the panel in this appeal, and this Court. Polykoff v. Collins, 816 F.2d 1326, 1332 (9th Cir. 187); quoting Hawaii Housing Authority u. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 238 (1984).
c. Federal courts look at the state proceedings at the time of the district court hearing and separately upon federal appellate review, as the majority held in Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 2023).
d. Federal courts look at matters as the case progresses, in the same way constitutional standing and mootness are evaluated, which is the position of the Appellants, the Eighth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, and arguably this Court in Middlesex, supra;
e. Federal courts look at the time the complaint is filed and matters before, as advocated by
2. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that California State Bar attorney discipline proceedings meet the Middlesex factors in Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Ct. of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn. 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)), and so are protected by Younger abstention, the California Supreme Court held in In re Rose, 22 Cal.4th 430, 440 (2000) that such proceedings are not civil enforcement proceedings nor criminal proceedings, thus avoiding the California Constitution's requirement that the Court hear oral argument on all civil and criminal cases before it? See.
3. Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the Younger abstention requirement of a fair opportunity to raise federal claims is ignored if the federal court does not think the federal constitutional argument is meritorious on a pre-emptive basis?
At what point or points in time should federal courts analyze the factors for application of Younger abstention?