Johnson v. Rahimian, et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/10/2013 ORDERING 14 since movants Parisa Rahimian, and Esmail Rahimian, have not supported their motion to dismiss with sufficient argument or authority, it is DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SCOTT JOHNSON,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

v.
ESMAIL RAHIMIAN, in his
individual and representative
capacity as Trustee—Rahimian
2005 Family Revocable Living
Trust; PARISA RAHIMIAN, in
her individual and
representative capacity as
Trustee—Rahimian 2005 Family
Revocable Living Trust;
TIFFANY LE, an individual,

18

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS ESMAIL
AND PARISA RAHIMIAN’S DISMISSAL
MOTION*

Defendants.

17

19

No. 2:13-cv-01428-GEB-CKD

Defendants Esmail and Parisa Rahimian seek dismissal of
Plaintiff’s

state

claims

alleged

against

them

in

Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), arguing that because Plaintiff’s
sole
based

federal
is

granted.

not

claim

upon

alleged

Plaintiff

which

subject

against

them,

counters

that

matter
their

jurisdiction

motion

supplemental

should

is
be

federal

jurisdiction exists “[b]ecause the state law claims against the
Rahimians [are] part of the same case or controversy involved
with the [referenced] federal claim.” (Pl.’s Opp’n 2:2-4, ECF No.

27
*

28

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D.
Cal. R. 230(g).

1

1
2

18.)
The

movants

rejoin

in

their

reply

brief

with

a

3

conclusory argument that was not included in their opening brief;

4

specifically,

5

supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims alleged against

6

them because of the nature of the case. However, a “district

7

court need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a

8

reply brief.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir.

9

2007). Therefore, this argument is disregarded.

10
11
12

that

the

Court

should

decline

to

exercise

Since the movants have not supported their motion with
sufficient argument or authority, it is DENIED.
Dated:

December 10, 2013

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2