The diversion of the Britney Spears conservatorship case to federal court is shaping up to be a debacle for those who wish to free the embattled pop star from her father's control.

Attorney Jon Eardley, who purports to represent Spears, filed court papers Feb. 14 removing the conservatorship case from state court. Federal jurisdiction applies to the case, he argued, because the two conservators have supplemented the prescription drugs Spears receives “with a near total deprivation of her civil rights.”

Spears's father, James Spears, and attorney Andrew Wallet are acting as temporary conservators pending a March 10 hearing on a permanent conservatorship.

But U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez indicated last week that he will decline jurisdiction and remand the case back to state court. And counsel for James Spears is urging him to sanction Eardley and “any person or persons with whom he has worked in concert with the removal [to federal court], or in whose agency he acts.”

“This willful attempt to interfere with the Conservatorship Proceedings -– which, if successful, could have resulted in dire consequences for Britney –- justifies not only an award of attorneys’ fees, but also far more severe sanctions,” Jeffrey D. Wexler says in a motion to remand.

The brief suggests Eardley has links to Sam Lufti, a friend of Britney Spears who has been battling with her parents over management of her affairs.

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a state court case may qualify for removal if it “raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons v. Darue Engineering, 545 U.S. 308 (2005).

Eardley originally said the Britney Spears conservatorship meets the Grable test because “the deprivation of her civil liberties by the conservator is so severe as to interfere with the effectiveness of the [prescribed] medications.”

In a more recent filing, he abandoned that approach, arguing instead that Spears's rights were violated when the state court waived notice to her before establishing the conservatorship.

But Wexler says Eardley is an “attorney without a client” since the state court ruled in the conservatorship proceeding that Spears lacks the capacity to hire her own counsel. He also notes that a judge sanctioned Eardley in 2006 for filing a removal action on behalf of a litigant he did not represent.

According to Wexler, James Spears has already incurred attorneys’ fees and costs of more than $27,495 as a result of the removal action.

Judge Gutierrez could rule on the motion to remand by the end of this week. In a Feb. 19 minute order, he said Eardley's jurisdictional claims “appear to be defective” because they “may not 'arise under' federal law.”

By Matthew Heller
2/26/08