Sikking et al v. Housing of Urban Development (HUD) et al

Filing 109

ORDER Denying 108 Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/17/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF SIKKING, et al. Case No.: 19CV1004-LAB (KSC) Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. 14 RICHARDSON C. GRISWOLD, et al. 15 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL Defendants. 16 17 18 In their motions to dismiss, Defendants raised the defenses of res judicata 19 and collateral estoppel, and also asked the Court to abstain under Younger v. 20 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Because the status of the state court nuisance action 21 that these arguments referenced was not clear, the Court ordered Defendants to 22 brief the status of the state court case. Specifically, the Court needed to know 23 whether final judgment had been entered in that case. Defendant Richardson 24 Griswold filed a response (Docket no. 100) making clear the state court action was 25 still pending. 26 On February 1, the Court issued an order granting in part the motions to 27 dismiss, and giving Plaintiffs 28 calendar days to seek leave to file a third amended 28 complaint. After the court issued its ruling, Plaintiffs submitted a document 1 19cv1004 1 identifying itself as a response to Griswold’s filing. The Court accepted it by 2 discrepancy order. 3 The document has hardly anything to do with Richardson’s response. 4 Instead, it argues that the Court has committed numerous errors and that Plaintiffs 5 have been cheated both in this Court and in the state court action. Because 6 Plaintiffs filed this after the Court’s order granting in part the motions to dismiss, 7 and because it appears to be addressed to the Court’s rulings there as well as 8 some of its earlier orders, the Court construes this filing as an unauthorized 9 renewed motion for reconsideration. So construed, it is DENIED. 10 The motion argues that Griswold lied to the state court, and that Jeff and 11 Barbara Sikking were fee owners of the property in question. No one disputes that 12 the Sikkings owned the property, however. If they were not owners, there would 13 have been no reason for the City of San Diego to bring the nuisance action against 14 them. And, to the extent Plaintiffs believe the state court has made errors or has 15 been deceived, they can bring it to that court’s attention and seek relief there. With 16 exceptions inapplicable here, this Court has no authority to supervise ongoing 17 nuisance abatement proceedings in the state court. See Herrera v. City of 18 Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that nuisance 19 abatement action implicated important state interests, and that district court 20 properly abstained under Younger from enjoining or interfering with those ongoing 21 proceedings). 22 Plaintiffs have been cautioned before about requirements for 23 reconsideration. Their latest motion also fails to meet those requirements. If 24 Plaintiffs believe the Court has made an error, they can file an appeal as authorized 25 by law. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 19cv1004 1 2 If Plaintiffs believe they can successfully amend, they should work diligently on their motion, as permitted by the February 1 order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 17, 2021 6 7 8 Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 19cv1004

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?