Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06615/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06615-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER LEWIS JENAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DEBRA BERG; and BERNARD A. TE )

VELDE, )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6615 AWI LJO

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

AMEND FINDINGS,

VACATING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO

RETURN NON-REDACTED

EXHIBIT

[Documents #21, #24, and #25]

In this complaint by plaintiff Roger Lewis Jenan (“Plaintiff”) for conversion and

reconveyance, the court previously issued an order granting the motion to dismiss of

defendants Debra Berg and Bernard A. TeVelde (“Defendants”). The motion to dismiss was

granted without leave to amend on February 2, 2005, on the ground there is no basis for

subject matter jurisdiction, and the case was ordered closed. Doc. 14. On February 14, 2005,

Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal. That motion was denied on

April 6, 2005. However, in denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the court noted

that Plaintiff had submitted a document titled Exhibit “A,” which contained un-redacted

personal private information. The court ordered Exhibit “A” sealed for a 60-day period of

time and granted Plaintiff leave to submit a redacted exhibit which could be properly filed. 

Case 1:04-cv-06615-AWI-LJO Document 30 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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 2

Doc. 20. The instant motion to “Amend Findings Based on False Information and

Misrepresentation Filed by Defendants” (motion to amend findings”) was filed on April 20,

2005. The court notes that Plaintiff has submitted an amended version of previouslysubmitted Exhibit “A,” from which the personal private information of Plaintiff has been

redacted.

The court has examined Plaintiff’s memorandum in support of the motion to amend

findings. The court finds the argument set forth there to support of subject matter jurisdiction

repeats the arguments previously asserted by Plaintiff in his opposition to Defendants’

motion to dismiss and in Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed February 14, 2005. 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend findings has added nothing new to the arguments. The court

again rejects Plaintiff’s assertion of subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity, admiralty,

and federal question for the reasons previously set forth in its orders of February 2, 2005, and

April 6, 2005. 

Plaintiff also appears to be requesting that the court amend “findings” previously

made concerning the factual background and nature of the dispute in this case. The court has

made no findings of facts pertaining to the underlying merits of this case, and, because

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the court will make no findings of fact now or in the

future. The court, in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, referred to both the complaint

and to the facts set forth in Defendants’ motion to dismiss to establish a factual context for

the discussion of the motion to dismiss. Then, as now, the court points out that any factual

background provided is for illustrative purposes and is not dispositive of the case because

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Plaintiff contends a number of statements made by

Defendants are false or misleading; principally statements that pertain to the existence of a

deed of trust that may or may not have legitimately been held by Bank of the Sierra. Again,

the factual predicates of this case are not relevant to its outcome. To put it bluntly, while the

parties may dispute whether there was a deed of trust, a default on a loan, or a proper

Case 1:04-cv-06615-AWI-LJO Document 30 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

foreclosure sale, these contentions do not concern the court because the court has no

jurisdiction over this case. This is not a federal case and Plaintiff may not resolve his claims

against Defendants in this court. 

Plaintiff has, during the pendency of this motion, filed a request for entry of default

against Defendants. The court cannot entertain a request for default because Defendants’

motion to dismiss was granted prior to the request for default and the case has been closed. 

The request for default will be disregarded. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the findings is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s request for default is to be DISREGARDED as improperly filed and the

clerk of the court shall remove any original filing from the file and return same to

Plaintiff.

3. The clerk shall remove from the file the document titled “Exhibit A” from the file and

shall substitute in its place the submission titled “Redacted Information to be

Substituted in Filings of January 14 and February 14, 2005.” Any copies of “Exhibit

A” remaining in the case file shall be removed and returned to Plaintiff.

4. The case remains closed. The Clerk of the Court shall accept no further filings

pertaining to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06615-AWI-LJO Document 30 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 3