ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

LARRY ALAN BURNS, Chief District Judge.

After the Court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, Plaintiff Sylvia Santos filed a document styled as a proof of service of having served Defendants with a copy of a state court document. The Court accepted this for filing, construing it as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 for relief from judgment.

In determining that jurisdiction was lacking under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court accepted Santos' representation that after the state court dismissed her claims with prejudice, she took an appeal to the California Court of Appeal. But when she formally abandoned her state court appeal on August 13, 2018, the state trial court's judgment became final. (Docket no. 24 at 2:22-24.) See Siebel v. Mittelsteadt, 41 Cal.4th 735, 742 (2007) (holding that abandonment of appeals allowed existing judgment to become final); Sheen v. Sheen, 2017 WL 944197, at *11 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. Mar. 10, 2017) (noting that judgment became final when an appeal from the judgment was abandoned). Santos has now submitted a copy of the appellate record showing that the appellate court accepted her abandonment, and corrected its earlier remittitur. But this only confirms that the Court's working assumption was correct, and does not alter the outcome or warrant reconsideration.

Santos argued that the state trial court erred when it dismissed her claims. But as the Court determined in its order of dismissal, Rooker-Feldman bars this de facto appeal of that dismissal. And even if it did not, Defendant's motion to dismiss the case on the basis of res judicata (Docket no. 19) would have been granted.

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.