Sikking v. Housing of Urban Development (HUD)
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed a document after the court's order granting in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the court construed as an unauthorized renewed motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion, finding it failed to meet procedural requirements and that the court lacked authority to supervise the ongoing state court nuisance proceedings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“So construed, it is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified the filing as a renewed motion for reconsideration rather than a response to the defendant's briefing on the status of the state court case. Under local rules and general federal practice, renewed motions for reconsideration are disfavored and require specific showings of manifest error or newly discovered evidence. The order notes that Plaintiffs had been previously cautioned about these requirements. Furthermore, the substantive arguments regarding the state court proceedings are properly outside the scope of the federal court's authority under the Younger abstention doctrine, as cited in the order. Therefore, the denial is procedurally and substantively sound based on the recited facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but logically sound. It correctly construes the ambiguous filing as a renewed motion for reconsideration based on its content and timing. It applies the correct legal standard (Younger abstention) to dismiss the substantive complaints regarding the state court case, citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Herrera). It also correctly notes the procedural failure to meet reconsideration requirements. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for the specific ruling made.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
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)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL 14 RICHARDSON C. GRISWOLD, et al. 15 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 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 / / / 1 If Plaintiffs believe they can successfully amend, they should work diligently 2 ||on their motion, as permitted by the February 1 order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 17, 2021 6 aud A Gur 7 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28