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)

Download PDF
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?