Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02653/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02653-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Alexandrou
Plaintiff
County of Sacramento
Defendant
Richard Maddox
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MADDOX, a natural person; ) 

KAREN ALEXANDROU, a natural )

person; TIEN HONG VO, a natural )

person; THONG VO, a natural person;)

NGAU THI NGUYEN, a natural person; )

and SONIA LUONG, a natural person, )

) 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-EFB

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a local )

government agency; JAN SCULLY, a )

natural person and the District )

Attorney for Sacramento County; )

CYNTHIA BESEMER, a natural person )

and Chief Deputy District Attorney )

for Sacramento County; KAREN )

MAXWELL, a natural person and )

Deputy District Attorney for )

Sacramento County; NATALIA LUNA, )

a natural person and Deputy )

District Attorney for Sacramento )

County; WILLIAM MOTMANS, a natural )

person and an investigator )

employed by the District Attorney )

for Sacramento County; and JAMES )

COOPER, a natural person and a )

captain of the Sacramento County )

Sheriff’s Department, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 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

The Order did not dismiss Plaintiff’s action for lack of 1

federal jurisdiction; the action was dismissed because the Court decided

no federal question existed and it declined to continue exercising

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims. 

As indicated in the Order, Maddox and Alexandrou’s severed 2

action was not given “its own action number” because it was dismissed

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) and (3). (Order at 7-8.)

Future filings in 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-EFB need not be copied into 3

the new action.

2

On November 16, 2006, Plaintiffs Richard Maddox and Karen

Alexandrou (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion “for relief from

th[e] portion of the Court’s Order . . . filed November [6], 2006,

(“O[rder]”) dismissing PLAINTIFFS’ action for lack of federal

jurisdiction . . . .” (Mot. at 2.) Plaintiffs’ motion reveals they 1

do not oppose the severance portion of the Order, since they state the

Order “grant[ed] the request to sever the actions,” (id.) but they do

oppose the portion of the Order that dismissed their severed case

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(2) and (3).

Plaintiffs’ present motion has been noticed in a stayed

action. Since Plaintiffs’ case has been severed and they seek relief

only from the dismissal portion of the Order, Plaintiffs’ pending

motion will be decided in a separate action. Therefore, the Clerk of 2

the Court is directed to create a new action into which all the

documents filed thus far in 2:06-cv-0072-GEB-EFB shall be placed, and 3

shall assign the new action to the same district judge and magistrate

judge since the new action is related to the instant action. 

Plaintiffs’ motion filed on November 16, 2006, is deemed noticed for 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 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

3

hearing in the new action, which will be created for all of Maddox and

Alexandrou’s claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 21, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02653-GEB-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3