Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cornejo v. Moran, 17-cv-04664-CRB. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180105698 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . Plaintiffs move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to amend the Court's judgment against them. For the reaosns stated in the order filed Dec. 1, 2017 (dkt. 21), the Court rejects Plaintiffs' arguments that the the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. Plaintiffs next argue that the Court should not have dismissed their complaint "with prejudice," because it dismissed the claims on the basis that it la
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to amend the Court's judgment against them. For the reaosns stated in the order filed Dec. 1, 2017 (dkt. 21), the Court rejects Plaintiffs' arguments that the the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

Plaintiffs next argue that the Court should not have dismissed their complaint "with prejudice," because it dismissed the claims on the basis that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. This is correct. Frigard v. United States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988). The dismissal was without prejudice to the Plaintiffs refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction—here, state court. The Court therefore will amend its judgment. However, lest there be any confustion, the dismissal was without leave to amend and was a final, appelable order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer