Reiffin v. Hoey

Filing 55

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd DENYING 49 Motion to Vacate Judgment. Signed on 3/5/2012.(hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2012)

1

** E-filed March 5, 2012 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

MARTIN REIFFIN,
Plaintiff,

12
v.
13

No. C11-04625 HRL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR HEARING AND TO
VACATE JUDGMENT

BEVERLY HOEY,
14
15

[Re: Docket No. 49, 54]
Defendant.
____________________________________/

16

Plaintiff Martin Reiffin sued Beverly Hoey, alleging that she committed “fraud” by

17

“misrepresenting” federal patent law. Dkt. No. 16 (“First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”). Reiffin,

18

a patent attorney, retained Hoey, an estate planning attorney, to prepare a “trust agreement” for

19

plaintiff’s family. FAC ¶ 7. Reiffin alleges that Hoey did unnecessary legal work by structuring the

20

agreement so as to protect the trust fund from potential tax liability in the event that Microsoft, with

21

whom Reiffin has executed a patent infringement settlement agreement, delayed payment of

22

damages that Reiffin intended to put into the trust fund. Id. ¶ 11. Reiffin alleges that this scenario

23

would never arise because doing so would be bad for Microsoft’s business, and sued Hoey, arguing

24

that her “misrepresentation” of patent law raised a federal question.

25

Hoey moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Reiffin had not

26

raised a federal question and had instead pled only common law claims. Finding no federal question

27

or other basis for jurisdiction, this court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

28

jurisdiction in its Order of January 1, 2012, and entered a judgment of dismissal. Dkt. Nos. 47, 48.

1

Now, plaintiff moves to vacate the judgment of dismissal. Dkt. No. 49. Defendant has opposed the

2

motion. Dkt. No. 51. On February 28, over a month after he filed the motion, Reiffin belatedly

3

requested that the court set a hearing on this matter for March 13, 2012. Dkt. No. 54. The matter is

4

deemed suitable for decision on the papers, and no hearing is necessary. Civil L. R. 7-1(b). The

5

court rules as follows.

6

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

7

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

8

intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

9

Cir. 1993).

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Reiffin states that he moved to vacate judgment to “correct manifest errors of fact and law”

11

and “incorporate newly-discovered evidence.” Dkt. No. 49, p. 1 (“Motion”). However, he presents

12

no new evidence whatsoever, and instead merely reiterates the allegations he offered in his original

13

complaint and his FAC. Reiffin contends that there is no contract at issue in this action, and that

14

defendant’s “misrepresentations” of patent laws confer federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff fails to

15

appreciate the distinction between his attempt to allege that the defendant misrepresented patent law

16

and a genuine dispute about the meaning of some provision of patent law. Reiffin’s allegation that

17

that Hoey unnecessarily planned for an unlikely scenario in which Microsoft delays payment of

18

what it owes Reiffin has nothing to do with the meaning of any provision of patent law.

19

Plaintiff has not even come close to raising a federal question, and even if he were able to

20

cite some provision of patent law relevant to the underlying dispute between the parties, this would

21

not suffice to confer federal jurisdiction. “Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases

22

arising under the patent laws, but not of all questions in which a patent may be the subject matter of

23

the controversy.” Boggild v. Kenner Products, Div. of CPG Products Corp., 853 F.2d 465, 468 (6th

24

Cir. Ohio 1988) (citations omitted). As the plaintiff has reiterated many times, his complaint is that

25

the defendant “misrepresented” the effect of patent law. Plaintiff’s claim is really for

26

misrepresentation, and does not arise under the patent laws or any other federal law.

27
28

2

1

It is clear that plaintiff has not presented and cannot present any of the elements that would

2

justify this court’s reconsideration of the judgment of dismissal, and accordingly, there is no basis

3

for the court to vacate judgment. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2012
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

C11-04625 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Martin Gardner Reiffin
47 Pheasant Run Terrace
Danville, CA 94506

3
4
5
6

Beverly M Hoey
313 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4