You're viewing Docket Item 19 from the case Al-Mansur v. Carville et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case3:13-cv-03503-LB Document19 Filed10/03/13 Page1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

SABIR AL-MANSUR,

v.

Plaintiff,

JUDGE WYNNE CARVILL, et al.,
Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 13-03503 LB
ORDER (1) REGARDING THE
JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS’
PROPOSED JUDGMENT, (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND (3)
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
[Re: ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17]

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Sabir Al-Mansur, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action against Gross Mortgage

Corporation, Contractors Capital Corporation, Barry Gross, and Felix Seidler (collectively, the
“Mortgagee Defendants”) as well as the Alameda County Superior Court and three of its judges:
Judge Wynne Carvill, Judge Don Clay, and Judge Ioana Petrou (collectively, the “Judicial
Defendants”). Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 On September 20, 2013, the court granted Defendants’
motion to dismiss Mr. Al-Mansur’s complaint. 9/20/2013 Order. The court found that the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine bars all of Mr. Al-Mansur’s claims against all Defendants and his action must be
dismissed because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. The court dismissed with
prejudice Mr. Al-Mansur’s claims against the Judicial Defendants, but out of an abundance of

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronically-

generated page numbers at the top of the document.

C 13-03503 LB
ORDER




T
T
R
R
U
U
O
O
C
C
T
T
C
C
I
I
R
R
T
T
S
S
I
I
D
D
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
D
D
E
E
T
T
I
I
N
N
U
U







a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F

Case3:13-cv-03503-LB Document19 Filed10/03/13 Page2 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

caution it dismissed without prejudice his claims against the Mortgagee Defendants because of Mr.
Al-Mansur’s statement in his opposition brief regarding a possible extrinsic fraud claim against
them. The court gave Mr. Al-Mansur until October 10, 2013 to file any First Amended Complaint
against the Mortgagee Defendants.

On September 27, 2013, the Judicial Defendants filed a “[Proposed] Judgment of Dismissal” that

dismisses with prejudice the action as against them. Proposed Judgment, ECF No. 15. That same
day, Mr. Al-Mansur filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Objections to Judgment and Form of
Judgment and Motion and Brief for Additional Findings and Conclusions.” Plaintiff’s Objections to
9/20/2013 Order, ECF No. 16. This document contains Mr. Al-Mansur’s objections to the court’s
September 20, 2013 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, not the Judicial Defendants’
proposed judgment, so the court construes it as a request for reconsideration. Mr. Al-Mansur also
filed a motion to extend the time for him to file a First Amended Complaint. Motion to Extend
Time, ECF No. 17. He requests 30 additional days to do so and says that he need this additional
time “[d]ue to the press of other business, personal and the other current litigations in both State and
Federal forums” and “to allow discovery requests, witness responses, and preparation of evidence.”
Id. at 1, 2. Then, on October 1, 2013, Mr. Al-Mansur filed a documents titled “Plaintiff’s Objections
to Proposed Judgment Filed 09/27/2013.” Plaintiff’s Objections to Proposed Judgment, ECF No.
18. This document contains Mr. Al-Mansur’s objections to the Judicial Defendants’ proposed
judgment.

Upon consideration of the papers submitted and applicable authority, the court defers entry of

the Judicial Defendants’ proposed judgment, DENIES Mr. Al-Mansur’s request for reconsideration,
and GRANTS Mr. Al-Mansur’s request for additional time to file a First Amended Complaint.

ANALYSIS

I. THE COURT WILL NOT ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE JUDICIAL
DEFENDANTS AT THIS TIME

With certain enumerated exceptions, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 provides that “[e]very
judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).
And Rule 54 provides that “when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final

C 13-03503 LB
ORDER

2



T
R
U
O
C
T
C
I
R
T
S
I
D
S
E
T
A
T
S
D
E
T
I
N
U





a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

Case3:13-cv-03503-LB Document19 Filed10/03/13 Page3 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all . . . parties only if the court determines that there is no
just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

Here, the Judicial Defendants want the court to enter a separate judgment that addresses only
them, even though the case is still live with respect to the Mortgagee Defendants. While Mr. Al-
Mansur’s objections to the form of the proposed judgment are meritless,2 the court’s September 20,
2013 order did not finally adjudicate all claims against all Defendants, see Frank Briscoe Co. v.
Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985); Maurer v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t,
691 F.2d 434, 436 n.1 (9th Cir. 1982) (“A dismissal as to some but not all defendants is not a final
order as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and is not appealable absent a certification under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b).”), and the court will not at this point certify it for appeal given the policy against piecemeal
review, see Stone v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 464, 467 (9th Cir. 1983). Once the action concludes, the
court will enter a single judgment.
II. MR. AL-MANSUR’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), a party must seek permission from the court prior to filing a

motion for reconsideration. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a).3 In seeking permission from the court, the
moving party must specifically show:

(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

2 Mr. Al-Mansur says that the Judicial Defendants’ proposed judgment “does not set forth the

legal names of the Judicial Defendants.” Plaintiff’s Objections to Proposed Judgment, ECF No. 18
at 2. He also says that the proposed judgment refers generically to “Defendants” and “makes no
distinction as to the Judicial or Mortgagee Defendants.” Id. These assertions are not accurate. See
generally Proposed Judgment, ECF No. 15.

3 Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) provides: “Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the

claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before a
Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any
interlocutory order made by that Judge on any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b). No party may
notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.”

C 13-03503 LB
ORDER

3



T
R
U
O
C
T
C
I
R
T
S
I
D
S
E
T
A
T
S
D
E
T
I
N
U





a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

Case3:13-cv-03503-LB Document19 Filed10/03/13 Page4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(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.

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Even if the court grants a party leave to file a motion for
reconsideration, reconsideration is only appropriate in the “highly unusual circumstances” when (1)
the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the underlying decision was in clear error
or manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dis. No.
1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “No motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the
applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to
have reconsidered.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). “Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge,
no response need be filed and no hearing will be held concerning a motion for leave to file a motion
to reconsider.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(d).

Mr. Al-Mansur objects to the court’s September 20, 2013 order granting Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. He primarily cites provisions of Rules 52, 54, and 58, see Plaintiff’s Objections to
9/20/2013 Order at 2, but those rules relate to finding of fact and conclusions of law issued after
bench trials or to separate judgments, not orders granting a motion to dismiss, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52,
54, 58. They have no applicability here. He argues that the court’s order “recites a number of
aberrations that are not substantiated in fact,” but he describes no such aberrations. See Plaintiff’s
Objections to 9/20/2013 Order at 3. He also argues that the court’s order “fails to state any legal
reasoning or factual determination that addresses the uncontroverted facts and evidence that the
Judicial Defendants and the Mortgagee Defendants violated the removal statutes.” This is more-or-
less true, but proper: the court did not address the merits of Mr. Al-Mansur’s claims is because it
found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies and thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them.
Mr. Al-Mansur also argues, as he did in his opposition brief, that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does
not bar his claims, but the court already considered this argument, and he points to no other basis for
reconsideration. He does not argue 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 its September 20, 2013
order. He does not argue that new material facts or a change of law occurring has emerged since the

C 13-03503 LB
ORDER

4



T
R
U
O
C
T
C
I
R
T
S
I
D
S
E
T
A
T
S
D
E
T
I
N
U





a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C


f
o




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

Case3:13-cv-03503-LB Document19 Filed10/03/13 Page5 of 5

court issued its order. And his suggestion that the court manifestly failed to consider material facts
or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to it does not persuade. His request that the
court reconsider its decision is DENIED.
III. THE COURT WILL GIVE MR. AL-MANSUR UNTIL OCTOBER 25, 2013 TO FILE A
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Mr. Al-Mansur also asks for more time to file his First Amended Complaint. The court

GRANTS his request and will give him more time, but not the 30 additional days he asks for. Some
of his reasons for seeking the additional time—“to allow discovery requests, witness responses, and
preparation of evidence”—are not applicable because discovery is not open in this case and the court
has not ordered that early discovery be taken. He also says that he has other pressing personal
business that needs attending to, so the court will give him an additional two weeks past its original
deadline to file a First Amended Complaint. With this extension, he will have five weeks from the
date of the court’s September 20, 2013 order to file one. This should be sufficient.

CONCLUSION

Based on the court foregoing, the court (1) defers entry of the Judicial Defendants’ proposed

judgment, (2) DENIES Mr. Al-Mansur’s request that it reconsider its September 20, 2013 order, and
(3) GRANTS his request for additional time to file a First Amended Complaint. Mr. Al-Mansur
may file a First Amended Complaint by October 25, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2013

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 13-03503 LB
ORDER

5




T
T
R
R
U
U
O
O
C
C
T
T
C
C
I
I
R
R
T
T
S
S
I
I
D
D
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
D
D
E
E
T
T
I
I
N
N
U
U







a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F