Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01888/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01888-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WANXIA LIAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD QUIDACHAY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1888 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO VACATE

THE ORDER DENYING

STAY OF ACTION,

AND GRANTING

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

On November 17, 2006, Defendants Judge Ronald Quidachay, Judge

Paul Alvarado and Maura Ramirez (collectively, the Superior Court

Defendants) moved to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Wanxia Liao's Second

Amended Complaint (SAC) against them. Plaintiff opposes the

motion. In addition Plaintiff has filed a motion to vacate the

Court's December 14, 2006 order denying her motion for an emergency

stay. These matters were submitted on the papers. Having

considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff's motion to vacate the Court's December 14, 2006 order

(Docket No. 47) and GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket

No. 38).

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BACKGROUND

As stated in the Court's earlier orders, this complaint is

based on an underlying civil rights lawsuit brought in state court

by Plaintiff against James Cahill, a former professor at the

University of California. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and

injunctive relief and monetary damages for her constitutional

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for her state law claim of

intentional infliction of emotional distress based on her

allegations that various state court judges, justices, and court

staff have acted to deprive her of her right to due process in

their handling of her state court lawsuit.

On October 12, 2005, the Court granted a motion by Superior

Court Defendants to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) with

leave to amend and instructed Plaintiff that she had to properly

serve the SAC on Defendants. In that order, the Court dismissed

with leave to amend the claims against the Superior Court

Defendants based on judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity;

dismissed the claims against the Superior Court itself without

leave to amend, but without prejudice to refiling in state court;

sua sponte dismissed the claims against the unserved Defendants,

Laurence Kay, Timothy Reardon, Patricia Sepulveda, Maria Rivera and

Ronald George, with leave to amend, on the same bases as the

dismissal of the claims against the Superior Court Defendants; and

sua sponte dismissed the claims against the State of California

without leave to amend, but without prejudice to refiling in state

court. 

On October 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document entitled

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

"Declaration to Disqualify Judge Wilken," requesting that the

undersigned recuse herself from the case. On November 15, 2005,

the Court denied the motion, holding that Plaintiff's allegations

of impartiality were insufficient as a matter of law. On November

27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Supplemental

Declaration of Bias and Prejudice of Judge Wilken."

Plaintiff filed her SAC on November 1, 2005. She eliminated

her claims against the Superior Court and the State of California,

but renewed her claims against the Superior Court Defendants and

the previously unserved Defendants Kay, Reardon, Sepulveda, Rivera,

and George. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of

the SAC and the unserved Defendants have not filed a response. 

On September 11, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file,

within twenty days of the order, proof that she had properly served

Defendants, or that she had asked them to waive service. In

response to the order, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion

for Revocation of Order; for Re-Assignment of Case," which the

Court interpreted as a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of both the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's

Request for Recusal and the Court's Order for Plaintiff to File

Proof of Service.

On October 25, 2006, the Court denied the motion and again

ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service within twenty days of

that date and warned that it would dismiss her case for failure to

prosecute if she did not. On November 3, 2006, Plaintiff purported

to file an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit of this

Court's order. 

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

On November 17, 2006, Superior Court Defendants waived service

and filed in this Court a motion to dismiss the action for failure

to state a claim and because Plaintiff failed to comply with the

Court's order. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for an

emergency stay of the Court's October 25, 2006 order denying her

motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of her request 

for recusal. The Court again found that it was permitted to, and

did, rule on the sufficiency of Plaintiff's allegations of bias and

prejudice and found them insufficient. Therefore, the Court denied

Plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal. Out of

an abundance of caution, the Court allowed Plaintiff an additional

opportunity to oppose Superior Court Defendants' motion to dismiss

and again instructed Plaintiff to file proof of service by December

22, 2006, stating that if Plaintiff failed to do so, the SAC would

be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on

December 22, 2006 and an amended opposition on January 4, 2007. In

addition, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Court's December

14, 2006 order denying her motion to stay this action pending

appeal.

I. Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate December 14, 2006 Order

Plaintiff does not indicate the legal basis for her motion to

vacate the Court's order. Judgment has not entered in this case;

thus, a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) is not

appropriate. And, Plaintiff has not identified any reason, such as

mistake, fraud or newly discovered evidence, that would justify

relief under Rule 60(b). Therefore, the Court construes

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

Plaintiff's motion as a motion for reconsideration under Civil

Local Rule 7-9.

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states as follows: "No party may

notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave

of Court to file the motion." Plaintiff has not sought leave of

Court to file this motion. Moreover, a motion for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party

shows:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented

to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in

the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of

the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material

facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order;

or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy any requirement listed

by Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) for obtaining leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion to vacate (Docket No. 47) is

deemed to be a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration and is denied.

II. Motion to Dismiss

As stated in the order dismissing the FAC, a motion to dismiss

for failure to state a claim will be denied unless it is “clear 

that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could

be proved consistent with the allegations.” Falkowski v. Imation

Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Swierkiewicz v.

Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002)). Superior Court Defendants move

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

to dismiss the SAC, stating that it "alleges nothing new or

different" from the FAC, which this Court dismissed based on

judicial immunity for Defendants Judge Quidichay and Judge Alvarado

and quasi-judicial immunity for Defendant Ramirez. 

A. Judicial Immunity

When it dismissed the FAC, the Court found that Judge

Quidichay and Judge Alvarado were entitled to absolute judicial

immunity and that Plaintiff's claims against them were therefore

barred. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986)

(en banc). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend her

complaint, provided she could "allege actions that these Defendants

have taken that are not protected by absolute judicial immunity." 

October 12, 2005 Order at 8. As Defendants note, Plaintiff renews

her argument that Judge Quidichay and Judge Alvarado lacked

jurisdiction to issue the orders sustaining the defendant's

demurrer and dismissing Plaintiff's action in the underlying

lawsuit. Plaintiff continues to misconstrue the lack-ofjurisdiction exception to judicial immunity. 

As explained in the order dismissing the FAC, Plaintiff's

argument that Judge Quidichay and Judge Alvarado acted with a

complete lack of jurisdiction must fail because the "general acts"

they performed were functions that they had jurisdiction to 

perform. Harvey v. Waldron. 210 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Because Plaintiff has not alleged actions that Judge Quidichay and

Judge Alvarado have taken that are not protected by absolute

judicial immunity, the Court dismisses with prejudice the claims

against them. 

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

B. Absolute Quasi-Judicial Immunity

In its order granting the motion to dismiss the FAC, the Court

found that Plaintiff's allegations against Ms. Ramirez, a court

clerk, also failed because she was entitled to absolute quasijudicial immunity. See Mullis v. United States Bankr. Ct., 828

F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). Although it noted that "any

amendment is unlikely to overcome absolute quasi-judicial

immunity," the Court granted Plaintiff leave "to amend her

complaint to allege actions that Ms. Ramirez has taken that are not

protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity." October 12, 2005

Order at 8-9. Plaintiff renews the claims she made in the FAC, but

now argues that Ms. Ramirez is not entitled to absolute quasijudicial immunity because she worked in the office of the clerk of

the Superior Court and did not act as a law clerk to a judge. 

However, the Ninth Circuit has applied absolute quasi-judicial

immunity to those who work as clerks of the court. See e.g., Moore

v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996); Mullis, 828 F.2d

at 1390. Because Plaintiff has not alleged actions that Ms.

Ramirez has taken that are not protected by absolute quasi-judicial

immunity, the Court dismisses with prejudice the claims against

her. 

III. Unserved Defendants

As noted above, the Court has warned Plaintiff multiple times

that if she did not serve the SAC on Defendants, her case would be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

On October 12, 2005, in its order dismissing the FAC, the

Court instructed Plaintiff to serve the SAC on Defendants. On

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

September 11, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, within

twenty days of the order, proof that she had properly served

Defendants, or that she had asked them to waive service. On

October 25, 2006, the Court again ordered Plaintiff to file proof

of service within twenty days of the order and warned that it would

dismiss her case for failure to prosecute if she did not. Finally,

in an order dated December 14, 2006, out of an abundance of

caution, the Court again ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service

by December 22, 2006. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proof of

service of the SAC. 

Therefore, the claims against Kay, Reardon, Sepulveda, Rivera

and George, the Defendants who have not waived service, are

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion

to vacate the Court's December 14, 2006 order (Docket No. 47) and

GRANTS Superior Court Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No.

38). The claims against the Superior Court Defendants are

dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims are also dismissed 

with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall enter

judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/24/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 9

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 50 Filed 01/24/07 Page 9 of 9