Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02087/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02087-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DELEON, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

and the general public,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELITE SELF STORAGE 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California 

limited liability company; MANDOT, 

LLC, D/B/A 1ST AMERICAN SELF 

STORAGE, a California limited liability 

company; BUDGET SELF STORAGE, 

LLC, D/B/A TIGER SELF STORAGE, a 

California limited liability company; 

REPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, 

an Arizona corporation; GREAT 

AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY, 

an Ohio corporation; BRANDON 

JOSEPH LUTHYE, individually and in 

his official capacity; TINA LUTHYE, 

individually and in her official capacity,

Defendants.

*

No. 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL REMAND

///

///

 * The caption has been amended according to the Dismissal of Doe Defendants portion of the 

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, ECF No. 39.

Case 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB Document 65 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff John DeLeon moves for an order partially remanding his claim for 

injunctive relief back to the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, under 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initially brought this action in Sacramento Superior Court and Defendants 

removed it, citing diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice of Removal, 

ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s lawsuit stems from Defendants’ alleged refusal to allow Plaintiff to 

access his personal belongings contained within storage units owned by and rented from 

Defendants. Defendants denied that access because Plaintiff had failed to pay all of the 

fees required by his rental contract with Defendants

Although Defendants ultimately granted Plaintiff access to his personal 

belongings, Plaintiff nonetheless persisted in his request for a preliminary injunction 

preventing Defendants from denying such access in the future. Because Plaintiff had 

already received the relief he requested and because there was no likelihood of Plaintiff 

restarting his relationship with Defendants, the Court denied his request for preliminary 

injunction as moot. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff now moves for an order partially remanding 

his claim for injunctive relief back to the Superior Court of California, Sacramento 

County. (Pl.’s Mot. for Remand (“Mot.”), ECF No. 50.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff earlier requested that his request for preliminary injunction be remanded if 

the Court were inclined to grant it. Instead, however, the Court simply denied Plaintiff’s 

claim for injunctive relief as moot. (See Pl.’s Reply Br. in Support of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 

 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 

230(g). The hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB Document 65 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 4
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

4:22-5:1, ECF No. 34 (“If there is an issue with [Plaintiff]’s Article III standing, the 

appropriate remedy is remand back to the state court from whence this case came.”))

Because the instant Motion seeks relief that has already been denied, it is 

construed as a motion for reconsideration. See Rao v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 

No. CIV S–08–1527 DAD PS, 2011 WL 1464378, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2011) (“the 

court construes plaintiff’s motion as one for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 230”). 

Local Rule 230(j) prescribes:

Whenever any motion has been granted or denied in whole 

or in part, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration is 

made upon the same or any alleged different set of facts, 

counsel shall present to the Judge . . . an affidavit or brief . . . setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding 

each motion for which reconsideration is sought, including:

(1) when and to what Judge . . . the prior motion was made; 

(2) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon; 

(3) what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 

to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and 

(4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the 

time of the prior motion.

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j). Plaintiff has not met the requirement of Local Rule 230(j). He has 

failed to demonstrate any changed facts or circumstances that did not exist at the time of 

his initial motion for injunctive relief, let alone why such facts or circumstances were not 

raised earlier. Plaintiff’s current Motion accordingly fails. See Rao, 2011 WL 1464378 at 

*2 (“plaintiff has not presented in her brief any new or different facts or circumstances 

which did not exist or could have been shown prior to the filing of the court’s order 

granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court finds that 

plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 230.”)

///

///

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB Document 65 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Remand (ECF No. 50)

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB Document 65 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 4