Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02130/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02130-1/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. 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2130-LAB (MDD) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff Sylvia Santos brought an earlier action, 18cv506-LAB (MDD), 

Santos v. Office Depot, et al., which the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

She then filed this action on September 14, 2018. 

Defendant Office Depot Inc. filed a motion to dismiss, accompanied by a 

request for judicial notice. The documents to be noticed, which were all 

authenticated copies of state court records, showed that while Santos was litigating 

case 18cv506, she was simultaneously prosecuting the same claims in state court. 

The documents also show that, before she filed this case, the state court had 

already adjudicated her claim and dismissed it with prejudice. (See Docket no. 19-

1, Ex. D (order dated July 24, 2018, dismissing Santos’ claims with prejudice).) 

Under California law, dismissal with prejudice “is the equivalent of a final judgment 

on the merits, barring the entire cause of action.” Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, 

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 24 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

Inc., 48 Cal. 4th 788, 793 (2010). Office Depot offered the exhibits as a way of

establishing the affirmative defense of res judicata. 

The exhibits also raised a jurisdictional issue, which the Court required 

Santos to brief. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal district courts of 

jurisdiction to decide cases that amount to de facto appeals from state court 

judgments. Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 858–59 (9th Cir. 

2008). The issues need not be identical, as long as the federal issues are 

inextricably intertwined with the state court issues. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 

1158 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must raise and address jurisdictional issues 

whenever they become apparent, even if the parties do not raise them. See Mt. 

Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977). 

In light of the apparent lack of jurisdiction, the Court ordered Santos to file a 

brief explaining why it had jurisdiction over her claims. She was reminded that, as 

the plaintiff, she bears the burden of showing that the Court has jurisdiction. See 

Abrego Abrevo v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). She has 

now filed her Response. (Docket no. 22.) 

Santos does not dispute the documents’ authenticity, and she agrees that 

the state court dismissed her claims with prejudice. The Court takes judicial notice 

of the state court records. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 

2007) (court may take notice of other courts’ proceedings of). 

Santos argues that the state court erroneously and improperly dismissed her 

complaint and that the dismissal is therefore void. (Response at 6, ¶ 17.) She says 

she took an appeal, but formally abandoned it on August 13, 2018.1

 (Id. at 6, ¶ 16; 

8, ¶ 21.) She argues that because the state trial court wrongly dismissed her 

                                               

1

 It is not entirely clear what Santos was appealing or why she abandoned it. But 

the California Court of Appeals was likely the only court with jurisdiction to consider 

her appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of her claims. 

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 24 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

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

complaint without affording her due process, the claims she raised there should be 

heard in this Court. (Id. at 9, ¶ 26 (asking this Court to correct the state court’s 

error).) 

Santos’ response makes clear that this case, filed after the state court’s 

dismissal of her claims with prejudice became final, represents a prohibited de 

facto appeal of a state court decision. This is exactly what Rooker-Feldman

prevents lower federal courts from hearing. Right or wrong, the state court 

judgment is not appealable in this Court, and the Court cannot reconsider claims 

the state court has finally adjudicated. 

The Court therefore holds that it lacks jurisdiction over Santos’ claims, and 

the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The motion to 

dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 13, 2019 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 24 Filed 06/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3