Scarlett v. Resoll Group llc et al

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 25 Motion (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

RESOL GROUP LLC,

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17

Defendant Sidney T. Scarlett (“Scarlett”), acting pro se, brings the instant “Motion for

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

SIDNEY T. SCARLETT et al.,
Defendants.

15

Case No.: 14-CV-04402-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
REHEARING

18

Rehearing,” ECF No. 25, which effectively requests that the Court reconsider its December 1, 2014

19

order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 22. The Court will treat Scarlett’s Motion

20

for Rehearing as a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local

21

Rule 7-9.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides three grounds for reconsideration of an interlocutory
order:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory
order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the
exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know
such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time
of such order; or
1
Case No.: 14-CV-04402-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING

1

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

2

Whether to grant leave to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound discretion. See

3

Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.-USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014).

4

After carefully reviewing Scarlett’s submissions, including his December 5, 2014
handwritten letter, the Court concludes that Scarlett has made no showing that any of the three

6

bases for reconsideration has been satisfied. Scarlett has sought to remove to federal court an

7

unlawful detainer action and an action for quiet title brought against him in Santa Clara County

8

Superior Court. As explained in the Court’s prior order, see ECF No. 22 at 5-6, binding precedent

9

precludes this Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over these two state court actions.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

Federal courts such as this one are courts of limited jurisdiction, and Article III of the Constitution

11

forbids federal courts from adjudicating cases over which there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

12

The Court recognizes that the loss of one’s home is a traumatic event. The Court can

13

understand why Scarlett would want to explore any and all appropriate legal options, if any. In this

14

instance, however, the appropriate options lie in the California state courts that have original

15

jurisdiction over the property and legal relationships in question.

16

The Court refers Scarlett to the Santa Clara County Superior Court’s Self-Help Center

17

(“SHC”). The SHC is located at 99 Notre Dame Ave., San Jose, CA 95113, and it is open Monday

18

through Thursday from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The SHC recommends that individuals seeking

19

assistance arrive early. For more information, call [phone], or visit the SHC website at

20

http://www.scscourt.org/self_help/civil/civil_help.shtml.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: December 19, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 14-CV-04402-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING