Morilha v. Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT by Judge Jon S. Tigar denying 67 Motion to Amend/Correct ;.(mll, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DANIEL VITOR MORILHA,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 22-cv-03565-JST

10

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

11

Defendant.

Re: ECF No. 67

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel V. Morilha’s motion for leave to file an amended

13
14

complaint. ECF No. 67. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the motion.1
On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action against Defendant Superior

15
16

Court of California, County of Santa Clara (“Superior Court”). ECF No. 1. He filed a first

17

amended complaint (“FAC”) on August 29, 2022. ECF No. 17. Defendant thereafter moved to

18

dismiss. ECF No. 22. In granting Defendant’s motion, the Court held that Plaintiff’s claims were

19

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that Plaintiff failed to allege that he complied with

20

the State of California’s claim presentation requirement. ECF No. 50. Because amendment would

21

have been futile, the Court did not provide Plaintiff with leave to amend and judgment was

22

entered. Id.; ECF No. 51. On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to set aside judgment

23

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. 52. The Court denied that motion on

24

August 30, 2023. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff subsequently filed the present motion.
Plaintiff requests that this Court “allow him to amend his complaint pursuant Federal Rule

25
26

of Civil Procedures [sic] 15(a)(2) which provides a party may amend its pleading only with the

27
28

1

The Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and hereby vacates the
November 30, 2023 motion hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

1

court’s leave.” ECF No. 67 at 5. Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s current motion is “another

2

impermissible attack on the judgment, which was entered after this Court granted [Defendant’s]

3

motion to dismiss the first amended complaint . . . without leave to amend.” ECF No. 69 at 2.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

It is well-established that “once judgment has been entered in a case, a motion to amend

5

the complaint can only be entertained if the judgment is first reopened under a motion brought

6

under Rule 59 or 60.” Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended (Sept.

7

4, 1996). Here, judgment has been entered, see ECF No. 51, and it has not been reopened under

8

either a Rule 59 or Rule 60 motion. Indeed, the Court expressly denied Plaintiff’s prior motion to

9

set aside judgment under Rule 60 because “[m]ere dissatisfaction with the Court’s order or the

10

belief that the Court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief under Rule

11

60(b)(1).” ECF No. 66 at 2 (citing Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d

12

1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981)).

13

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: November 15, 2023
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2