Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02130/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02130-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1 

18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SYLVIA SANTOS, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

OFFICE DEPOT INC. , et al., 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2130-LAB (MDD) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 

 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 

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 28 Filed 07/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

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

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. 

Dated: July 1, 2019 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 28 Filed 07/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2