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)

Download PDF
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

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?