Seidel v. United States Of America et al
Filing
79
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF VICKI SEIDEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 17, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
THOMAS E. SEIDEL,
No. C 09-4875 MMC
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF VICKI
SEIDEL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
12
v.
13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14
Defendant.
/
15
16
VICKI SEIDEL,
Plaintiff,
17
18
19
No. C 10-5073 MMC
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
20
/
21
FOUR RIVERS INVESTMENTS, INC.
No. C 10-5074 MMC
22
v.
23
24
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
25
Defendants.
26
/
27
Before the Court is plaintiff Vicki Seidel’s motion, filed December 16, 2011, to
28
dismiss without prejudice her claims in the above-titled consolidated action. Defendant
1
United States of America has filed opposition to the extent the motion seeks dismissal
2
without, rather than with, prejudice. Having read and considered the parties’ respective
3
written submissions, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES
4
the hearing scheduled for January 20, 2012 and rules as follows.
5
The motion to dismiss without prejudice is hereby DENIED, for the reason that Vicki
6
Seidel’s claims and the claims of the other two plaintiffs are inextricably intertwined. See,
7
e.g., Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 1994) (denying motion to dismiss
8
where movant’s claims “inextricably entangled” in ongoing lawsuit), with the potential for
9
inconsistent decisions should her claims be refiled in a separate action.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?