Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01362-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On January 7, 2015, the court issued an order granting Defendants‟ motion for summary 

judgment as to Plaintiff‟s federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff‟s pendant state claims. Doc. # 83. Plaintiffs‟ state law claims were dismissed without 

prejudice and judgment was entered in favor of Defendants as to the federal claims. In the instant 

request for clarification, Plaintiffs request the court clarify the effect of the dismissal of state law 

claims without prejudice on the tolling of statutory time limits on state law claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(d). It is the court‟s understanding and intent that any limitations period on any state

law claims will begin to run as of the date the judgment of this court becomes final. “„[F]inal 

judgment‟ is defined as the date on which the appellate process „is terminated‟." U.S. v. Cook, 705 

F.2d 350, 351 (9th Cir. 1983); see Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030, 1033 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(“the Supreme Court of California noted that „[a] judgment becomes final when all avenues of 

direct review are exhausted‟”). 

SHARRON LE FAY; JEFF WALL; 

SCOTT WALL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WILLIAM LE FAY; FRESNO POLICE 

OFFICERS ERIC PANABAKER, 

DARRYLL VAN DDEURSEN and SGT. 

LEN GLEIM; FRESNO POLICE 

DETECTIVE JOHN GOMEZ; CITY OF 

FRESNO and DOES 2 to 10, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1362 AWI MJS

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Doc. # 87

Case 1:13-cv-01362-AWI-MJS Document 93 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Since Plaintiffs have timely filed a notice of appeal in this case, the running of limitations 

periods on state law claims will remain tolled pursuant to subsection 1367(d) until the later of (1) 

the issuance of the mandate of the appellate court affirming this court‟s decision, or (2) the final 

judgment by this court following remand by the appellate court to this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01362-AWI-MJS Document 93 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 2