UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEYMAN ROSHAN, Case No. 20-cv-04770-AGT

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF v. FROM JUDGMENT

GEORGE S. CARDONA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 81 Defendants.

Peyman Roshan filed this action to enjoin State Bar disciplinary proceedings and to obtain an order declaring State Bar disciplinary rules and procedures unconstitutional. The Court held that Younger abstention applied and dismissed the case. Dkt. 34. The Ninth Cir- cuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied Roshan’s petition for certiorari. Dkts. 58, 74. Roshan now moves for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), based on an al- leged intervening change in the law. The decisions he relies upon, Williams v. Reed,

(2025), and Seattle Pacific University. v. Ferguson,

(9th Cir. 2024), didn’t change the law applicable to his claims. Williams addressed state administrative exhaustion requirements, not abstention. See 145 S. Ct. at 470. The decision isn’t controlling here. The Ninth Circuit recently reached the same conclusion in another case filed by Roshan, in which he sought to enjoin the California Department of Real Estate’s disciplinary proceedings against him. See Roshan v. McCauley,

(9th Cir. 2025). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Roshan’s case based on Younger abstention, explaining that Williams, which postdated the district court’s decision, did “not change the calculus” because “[u]nlike Williams, this case concerns not exhaustion but abstention.” Jd. at 782 n.1. In Seattle Pacific, the Ninth Circuit held that a state attorney general’s investigation didn’t warrant Younger abstention because it didn’t constitute a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. See 104 F.4th at 63-65. That decision isn’t controlling either, because Roshan asked the Court to enjoin State Bar disciplinary proceedings, which are “judicial in charac- ter.” Hirsh vy. Justices of Supreme Ct. of Cal.,

, 712 (9th Cir. 1995). Younger applies in the latter context. See id. at 712-14. Moreover, after the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in this case, denied Roshan’s petition for rehearing, and issued its mandate, Roshan, on two occasions, moved to recall the mandate, the second time based on Seattle Pacific. See Case No. 21-15771, Dkts. 165, 171 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2021). The Ninth Circuit denied both motions. See id., Dkts. 167, 173. In effect, then, the Ninth Circuit has already determined that Seattle Pacific doesn’t change the law in a manner that would warrant reconsideration of Roshan’s claims. Roshan’s motion for relief from judgment is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 27, 2025 Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge