Huang v. Ultimo Software Solutions, Inc

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 29 Motion for Leave to File; denying 30 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 32 Motion to Amend Earlier Motion (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

DONGSHENG HUANG,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
ULTIMO SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

14

Defendant.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 12-0785 PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

On June 5, 2012, this court entered an order dismissing the claims brought by Plaintiff

17
Dongsheng Huang (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Ultimo Software Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant”)
18
19

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 On June 7, 2012, Plaintiff requested leave to file a motion

20

for reconsideration of the court’s June 5 order, 2 and on September 18, 2012, Plaintiff withdrew his

21

leave request and indicated he was moving for an amended judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 3

22

A final judgment has not been entered, and so the court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for

23

reconsideration. 4

24
25

1

See Docket No. 28.

26

2

See Docket Nos. 29, 30.

27

3

See Docket No. 32.

28

4

See Vasquez v. Select Portofolio Servs., Inc., Case No. C 11-06183 HRL, 2012 WL 2838902, at
*1 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2012).
ORDER

For leave to file a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff must show one of three situations

1
2

that justify revisiting the court’s earlier order: (1) “the district court is presented with newly-

3

discovered evidence”; (2) “there is an intervening change in controlling law”; or (3) “the district

4

court committed clear error or made a decision that was manifestly unjust.” 5 It is the last reason

5

that provides the basis for Plaintiff’s motion.

6

Plaintiff argues that the court erred by mistakenly presuming there was no final order in the

7
8
9

agency action, by failing to consider other grounds for subject matter jurisdiction, and by
dismissing the case with prejudice. Because the court finds Plaintiff fails to allege any manifest

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

error in the court’s subject matter jurisdiction determination, it will not discuss Plaintiff’s other

11

arguments.

12
13
14

In the underlying case, Plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment rendered by the Department
of Labor (“DOL”) against Defendant awarding Plaintiff back pay and other damages. 6 Plaintiff
specifically sought to have this court order Defendant to pay the damages directly to him 7 in

15
16
17

contravention to the DOL’s policy that damages must be paid to the agency’s administrator, who
then disburses the funds. 8

18

In the June 5 order, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter

19

jurisdiction. 9 The court noted that Plaintiff relied on the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”),

20

which subjects an agency decision to review only when the decision is (1) reviewable by statute or

21
22
23
24

5

See Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Case No. C 11-06684 WHA, 2012 WL 5269620, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2012).
6

See Docket No. 1.

7

See id.

25
26
8

27
28

See 20 C.F.R. § 655.810(a) (“”[T]he Administrator shall assess and oversee the payment of back
wages or fringe benefits to any H-1B nonimmigrant who has not been paid or provided fringe
benefits as required.”).
9

See Docket No. 28.

ORDER

1

(2) a final agency order has been issued. 10 The court also noted that the APA allows suits only

2

against the agency, and not private actors. 11 Noting that Defendant was a private company not

3

subject to the APA, that no final order was issued by the DOL, and that no statute made the non-

4

final decision reviewable, the court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear

5

Plaintiff’s claims. 12

6

Plaintiff appears to concede that the APA does not provide jurisdiction, and so he points to

7
8
9

various other statutes and regulations and argues that they provide the court with federal question
jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 13 None of the statutes or regulations,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

however, provides causes of action that would allow the court to exercise jurisdiction. For

11

example, 20 C.F.R. § 655.850 describes the transfer of an administrative record from an

12

administrative agency to a district court if a complaint regarding an agency decision is filed with

13

the district court. Nothing in the regulation states a cause of action. Likewise, none of the other

14
statutes or regulations Plaintiff suggests state claims, let alone causes of action matching his
15
16
17

allegations. Plaintiff has failed to show how the court manifestly erred in its determination that it
has no subject matter jurisdiction over his claim.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

18
19
20

Dated: November 20, 2012

21
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
10

See id.; see also 5 U.S.C. § 704.

11

See Docket No. 28; see also 5 U.S.C. § 704.

12

See Docket No. 28.

13

See Docket No. 29.

26
27
28

ORDER