Doan et al v. Singh et al
Filing
39
ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/26/2013 re 37 Motion for Reconsideration. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
KEVIN DOAN, et al.,
10
11
12
13
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 1:13-cv-00531-LJO-SMS
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OR
CLARIFICATION
NIRMAL SINGH, et. al.,
Defendants.
14
15
On July 15, 2013, Plaintiffs Kevin and Pauline Doan (“Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended
16
Complaint (FAC). Doc. 20. The FAC contained a single federal claim and a variety of state-law
17
claims. On August 29, the Court dismissed the federal claim for failure to state a claim, then
18
dismissed the remaining state-law claims for lack of federal jurisdiction. Doc. 34. On September
19
24, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration or clarification of the Court’s order. Doc. 37.
20
A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
21
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
22
there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d
23
656, 665 (9th Cir.1999). Here, Plaintiffs point to an apparent inconsistency in the Court’s August
24
29, 2013 order. In one paragraph, the Court indicated that it was not passing on the merits of the
25
state law claims and was dismissing these for lack of jurisdiction:
26
27
28
This Order will focus only on one sufficient cause for dismissal, the FAC’s failure to allege
grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Because the Court must dismiss the RICO claim,
it must dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
In a later paragraph, however, the Court implied that its order did adjudicate these state-law claims:
1
1
The Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss the FAC with prejudice. This Court DIRECTS the
clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs and to close this action.
2
3
In light of this apparent contradiction, Plaintiffs ask the Court “to verify its ruling that the court
4
dismissed the RICO claim and the case is now dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to
5
state court regarding the state court claims.”
6
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion in part. Specifically, the Court clarifies that, although
7
the order did “dismiss the FAC with prejudice,” the Court intended only to dismiss the RICO claim
8
with prejudice. All state-law claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and without prejudice.
9
See Les Shockley Racing v. National Hod Rod Ass'n, 884 F.2d 504, 509 (9th Cir.1989) (“When ...
10
the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should
11
decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice”); see also Carnegie-
12
Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 348-51 (1988) (having eliminated federal-law claim, District
13
Court “could relinquish jurisdiction over the case only by dismissing it without prejudice” or, if
14
removed from state court, by remanding it).
15
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to remand the case to state court. However, the Court cannot do
16
so, because Plaintiffs filed it in federal court. See, e.g., Bok Sil Rah v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC,
17
2013 WL 140248 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013).
CONCLUSION
18
19
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS:
20
1. The first claim in the FAC (alleging violations of RICO) is dismissed with prejudice.
21
2. All remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice to being refiled in state court.
22
3. The action is dismissed.
23
4. The Clerk of Court shall file a revised judgment consistent with this order.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
27
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
September 26, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
28
2
1
66h44d
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?