Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05182/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05182-25/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RONALD FRANK FIDGE

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ET

AL. , 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-05182-YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION; DISMISSING 

REMAINING CLAIM WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 157, 165, 166 

On November 6, 2013, pro se plaintiff Ronald Frank Fidge filed a complaint against 

defendants, seeking recovery under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and various state tort claims. On 

June 25, 2015, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff 

on all then-remaining claims except for plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, and ordered the parties to show cause why the pendant state claim should not be 

dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 157.) In response to 

that order, defendants timely filed a joint statement. (Dkt. No. 158.) Plaintiff separately filed a 

statement purportedly responding to the Court’s order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 159). Plaintiff 

later filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment 

to the defendants. (Dkt. No. 166.) 

Presently before the Court are plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration, and the parties’ responses to the Court’s order to show cause on jurisdiction.1

 

 1

 In addition, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of interlocutory 

appeal of the Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants. (Dkt. No. 165.) Because the 

Court declines to retain jurisdiction over this matter, judgment will issue, and plaintiff may timely 

appeal the judgment upon entry thereof. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is therefore 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

Case 4:13-cv-05182-YGR Document 169 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Having carefully considered the papers submitted, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court 

hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and DISMISSES

WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff’s remaining state claim.2 

I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, plaintiff requests leave to file a motion for reconsideration of 

the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. This Court’s Civil Local Rule 7-

9(b) requires a party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order to “specifically show 

reasonable diligence3 in bringing the motion and one of the following: 

(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 a 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. 

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b) (emphasis supplied). 

None of the appropriate standards apply here. Plaintiff has not made any showing, let 

alone a specific showing, with respect to the standards in Local Rule 7-9(b). Instead, plaintiff 

seeks reconsideration of the evidence already presented to and before the Court on summary 

judgment. There is not a proper procedural basis for seeking reconsideration on these grounds. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave is DENIED. 

 2

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 

determined these matters suitable for decision without oral argument. 

3

 The Court notes that, even in light of his pro se status, plaintiff did not act with 

reasonable diligence in filing this motion. Indeed, plaintiff previously filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the order on summary judgment (Dkt. No. 160), which the Court denied 

without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to seek leave of Court (Dkt. No. 161). Rather than follow 

the Court’s instructions and file a motion for leave, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth 

Circuit. (Dkt. No. 162.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave following the Ninth Circuit’s 

dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order on summary judgment was 

not final or appealable. (Dkt. No. 164.) This alone warrants denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave. 

Case 4:13-cv-05182-YGR Document 169 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

II. JURISDICTION OVER REMAINING STATE TORT LAW CLAIM

The Court’s jurisdiction over this matter was conferred by the existence of a federal 

question, namely, plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Following the Court’s order on 

summary judgment, the only remaining claim is plaintiff’s fourth cause of action arising under 

state law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court previously exercised 

supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims as a result of the section 1983 claim. Without the 

federal claim, however, no basis for jurisdiction exists over the remaining state claim alone. 

Where “federal claims are dismissed before trial, as [plaintiff’s] section 1983 claim was 

here, pendant state claims also should be dismissed.” Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency 

of City of Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 651 (1984) (citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 

715, 726 (1966). Plaintiff, the party to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction in the first instance, has not 

provided the Court with any basis to deviate from this general rule. Defendants recognize that 

courts typically decline jurisdiction under these circumstances, but implore the Court to 

nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over the state tort law claim and dismiss it with prejudice. The 

Court declines. Plaintiff’s federal claim having been dismissed, the pendant state claim for 

intentional infliction of emotional distress is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and 

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff’s remaining state tort law claim for intentional 

infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, judgment will issue. 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 165 and 166. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-05182-YGR Document 169 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 3