Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04141/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Contra Costa County Adult Protective Services
Defendant
Rhonda Edwards
Defendant
Carole Marasovic
Plaintiff
Christine Mulder
Defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLE MARASOVIC,

Plaintiff,

v

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADULT

PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

Defendant.

 /

No C-04-4141 VRW

ORDER

On March 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter with the

court in No C-00-1954 VRW (“No 00-1954”) styled: “Request for leave

to renew motion under Rule 60(b) to reopen case or alternatively,

clarification for reasoning if earlier denial of reopening, in

favor of refiling, was based on equitable tolling/savings statute.” 

Doc #127. Because No 00-1954 had been closed, the court directed

the clerk to move this filing to No 04-4141 and indicated that it

would treat the filing as a motion. Doc #129. Defendants

subsequently filed an opposition to the motion (Doc #24), and

plaintiff submitted an untimely reply (Doc #27). After reviewing
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

the parties’ arguments and the applicable federal law, the court

DENIES plaintiff’s request to renew her motion to reopen No 00-

1954. 

I

A review of the procedural background of these cases is

appropriate. Plaintiff filed her complaint in No 00-1954 on behalf

of herself and her deceased mother, Elizabeth Marasovic, on May 31,

2000. Doc #1. Plaintiff’s mother passed away on June 7, 1999,

during an effort to resuscitate her by the staff at ShieldsRichmond Nursing Center, a convalescent hospital in El Cerrito,

California. Plaintiff brought federal and state claims against the

various medical providers as well as other entities and individuals

involved in providing medical care to plaintiff’s mother or

investigating potential elder abuse in the days prior to her death. 

Upon the filing of the complaint, No 00-1954 was assigned to the

undersigned. Over the course of the next sixteen months, plaintiff

thrice amended her complaint (Docs ## 11, 42 and 67). Upon

defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint (TAC), on

August 29, 2001, the court dismissed all federal claims against all

defendants except Contra Costa county and two of its employees,

Rhonda Edwards and Christine Mulder (collectively, “county

defendants”). Doc #91. As a result of this order, plaintiff had

two remaining federal claims against the county defendants stemming

from an allegedly unconstitutional search of plaintiff’s residence

on June 1, 1999.

Additionally, the court’s August 29, 2001, order

dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims against the county
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

defendants because plaintiff had not alleged that she had filed a

claim with Contra Costa county as required by the California

Government Tort Claims Act (GTCA), Cal Gov Code § 900 et seq. See

id at 25. Finally, the court concluded that further amendment to

the TAC would be futile and, therefore, the court denied

plaintiff’s request for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. 

See id at 26.

On September 7, 2001, plaintiff sought leave to file a

motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal with prejudice

of her state law claims against the county defendants, asserting

that she had, in fact, timely filed a claim with Contra Costa

county pursuant to the GTCA. Doc #94. The court concluded that

this evidence might indeed require reconsideration of the court’s

conclusion that further amendment of plaintiff’s complaint would be

futile. Thus plaintiff was given leave to file a motion for

reconsideration, which she did on September 16, 2002, and

supplemented on January 13, 2003. See Docs ##107, 112. On January

2, 2003, plaintiff also filed a motion she styled a motion to add

additional defendants. See Doc #111. 

On February 12, 2003, the court denied plaintiff’s motion

for reconsideration, but gave plaintiff leave to file a motion to

file a fourth amended complaint (FAC) to include new claims and/or

new defendants. Doc #115. Plaintiff’s motion was due on or before

March 20, 2003. Id. On March 21, 2003, plaintiff moved the court

for an extension of time (Doc #117), which the court granted on

July 9, 2003 (Doc #118), giving plaintiff until August 7, 2003, to

file the FAC. The deadline passed without plaintiff filing the

FAC, and on September 30, 2003, the court sua sponte dismissed the
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

case without prejudice. Doc #121.

On August 11, 2004, more than fifteen months after her

last filing and almost one year after dismissal, plaintiff

unexpectedly filed a motion to reopen the case. Doc #124. In that

motion, plaintiff asserted that, unbeknownst to her, the court had

an incorrect address on file for her and thus she never received

either the court’s July 9, 2003, order granting her leave to file

the FAC, nor the court’s September 30, 2003, order dismissing her

case. Id. The court denied plaintiff’s request to reopen on

August 17, 2004, giving two reasons: (1) the orders were sent to

the address the court had on file for plaintiff, and it was her

responsibility to ensure that the address on file was correct; and

(2) plaintiff’s proper recourse was not to file a motion to reopen

the closed case, but rather to open a new case and file a new

complaint. Doc #125. 

On September 29, 2004, plaintiff filed a new action

against the federal defendants, which was assigned to Judge

Jenkins. See No C-04-4141 MJJ. After defendants filed a motion to

dismiss the complaint based in part on statute of limitations

grounds and plaintiff filed her opposition, the undersigned sua

sponte related No 04-4141 to No 00-1954. 

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s request for

leave to renew her motion to reopen the case. In the alternative,

plaintiff requests clarification from the court if the denial of

the motion to reopen the case was based on equitable tolling of the

statute of limitations.

//

//
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

II

First, the court has already denied plaintiff’s motion to

reopen No 00-1954 and plaintiff offers no new arguments why the

case should be reopened. Despite the unorthodox format of the

present request, plaintiff essentially seeks reconsideration of the

court’s August 17, 2004, decision not to reopen No 00-1954. As the

court noted in adjudicating another of plaintiff’s requests for

reconsideration, there are typically three grounds on which a court

will grant reconsideration: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) a

clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust earlier decision of the

court; or (3) an intervening change in controlling law. See School

Dist No 1J, Multnomah County v ACandS, Inc, 5 F3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir 1993). 

Plaintiff does not present new evidence or argue that a

change in controlling law has occurred. Rather, plaintiff’s sole

rationale for seeking reconsideration appears to be her belated

realization of the effect of the court’s dismissal of No 00-1954: 

namely, that the filing date of the new case, rather than the

filing date of the dismissed case, would determine whether her

federal claims were barred by the applicable statute of

limitations. Based on this belated realization, plaintiff argues

that the court’s refusal to reopen No 00-1954 is manifestly unjust. 

Yet plaintiff’s misapprehension, unfortunate though it may be, does

not create a ground for reconsideration. The gravamen of the

court’s decision not to reopen No 00-1954 was plaintiff’s failure

to provide the court with an accurate address as required by Civil

Local Rule 3-11(a), as well as her failure to monitor the case for

well over a year. Because it was based on plaintiff’s inaction,
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

the court’s refusal to reopen was not manifestly unjust.

It also appears that plaintiff construed the court’s

August 17, 2004, order as implicitly tolling the statute of

limitations for her federal claims. See Doc #127 at 4 (“If

defendants are allowed to succeed on the basis that the complaint

is time-barred, it will defeat the intent of the Court’s order

denying the reopening on the basis that Plaintiff can refile.”) 

Plaintiff, however, may not move the court to reconsider an order

simply because she failed immediately to grasp its legal effect. 

In the August 17, 2004, order, the court merely stated: 

[T]he court’s September 30, 2003, dismissal of the case

was without prejudice. Plaintiff is thus free to file a

new case on the basis of the claims the court has

previously dismissed. Should plaintiff wish to proceed

with her claims, her recourse is simply to open a new

case and file a new complaint, as opposed to attempting

to reopen this case.

Doc #125. The order contained no decision regarding the applicable

statute of limitations. Nor was the decision to deny the reopening

of plaintiff’s case made, as plaintiff asserts, “on the basis that

Plaintiff can refile.” Doc #127 at 4. As discussed above, the

decision was based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

court’s previous orders and the fact that a motion to reopen was

not plaintiff’s proper recourse. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//
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

IV

In sum, plaintiff offers no adequate ground for the court

to reconsider its August 17, 2004, denial of plaintiff’s request to

reopen No 00-1954. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to renew her

motion to reopen No 00-1954 is DENIED. The case management

conference and motion hearing set for July 21, 2005, is VACATED. 

The parties may proceed with any remaining issues in No 04-4141. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge