LeFay et al v. LeFay et al

Filing 93

RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 87 Request For Clarification, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/15/2015. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

SHARRON LE FAY; JEFF WALL;
SCOTT WALL,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1362 AWI MJS

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

v.
WILLIAM LE FAY; FRESNO POLICE
OFFICERS ERIC PANABAKER,
DARRYLL VAN DDEURSEN and SGT.
LEN GLEIM; FRESNO POLICE
DETECTIVE JOHN GOMEZ; CITY OF
FRESNO and DOES 2 to 10,

Doc. # 87

Defendants.

16
17

On January 7, 2015, the court issued an order granting Defendants‟ motion for summary

18

judgment as to Plaintiff‟s federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

19

Plaintiff‟s pendant state claims. Doc. # 83. Plaintiffs‟ state law claims were dismissed without

20

prejudice and judgment was entered in favor of Defendants as to the federal claims. In the instant

21

request for clarification, Plaintiffs request the court clarify the effect of the dismissal of state law

22

claims without prejudice on the tolling of statutory time limits on state law claims pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 1367(d). It is the court‟s understanding and intent that any limitations period on any state

24

law claims will begin to run as of the date the judgment of this court becomes final. “„[F]inal

25

judgment‟ is defined as the date on which the appellate process „is terminated‟." U.S. v. Cook, 705

26

F.2d 350, 351 (9th Cir. 1983); see Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1033 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995)

27

(“the Supreme Court of California noted that „[a] judgment becomes final when all avenues of

28

direct review are exhausted‟”).

1

Since Plaintiffs have timely filed a notice of appeal in this case, the running of limitations

2

periods on state law claims will remain tolled pursuant to subsection 1367(d) until the later of (1)

3

the issuance of the mandate of the appellate court affirming this court‟s decision, or (2) the final

4

judgment by this court following remand by the appellate court to this court.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2