-MAN Nylonda Jazz Sharnese et al v. State of California et al, No. 2:2010cv06796 - Document 38 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 34 . (mz)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-MAN Nylonda Jazz Sharnese et al v. State of California et al Doc. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NYLONDA JAZZ SHARNESE and RONALD R. SHEA , ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) NO. CV 10-6796-VAP (MAN) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint 19 filed on September 13, 2010, the motion to dismiss filed by defendants 20 on October 6, 2010 (Docket Nos. 7-9, “Motion to Dismiss”), the motion 21 for leave to amend and proposed First Amended Complaint filed by 22 plaintiffs on December 18, 2010 (Dockets Nos. 16-17, “Motion to Amend”), 23 the motion for sanctions filed by plaintiffs on March 2, 2011 (Docket 24 No. 29, “Plaintiffs’ Sanctions Motion”), the opposition and reply 25 briefing (including exhibits) filed by the parties in connection with 26 the foregoing motions, all of the records herein, the Report and 27 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 plaintiffs’ “Response” to the Report, with accompanying Exhibits.1 2 Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to 3 which objections have been stated in writing. The 4 5 Among other things, the Magistrate Judge concluded that plaintiff’s 6 state law claims should be dismissed, because plaintiffs failed to 7 allege timely compliance with the claims filing provisions of the 8 California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”) and apparently could not do so, 9 given their concession, at a December 8, 2010 hearing, that no CTCA 10 claim had been presented. In their Response, plaintiffs allege that, 11 after they received the Report, they concluded that they had complied 12 with the CTCA, because on an unspecified date, they “timely filed a 13 complaint with the Judicial Council that substantially complied with” 14 the requirements of the CTCA. 15 attached to the Exhibits a declaration by plaintiff Ronald R. Shea, who 16 states that he “filed a complaint with the Judicial Council vis-à-vis 17 the referenced matter within the six-month window granted under the 18 California Tort Claims Act.” 19 declaration a copy of a May 24, 2011 letter from Staff Counsel Cynthia 20 Dorfman at the Commission on Judicial Performance for the State of 21 California, which references a pending complaint filed by plaintiffs. (Response at 67.) Plaintiffs have Plaintiff Shea has attached to his 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 A district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence or claims presented for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2000). The Exhibits to the Response include new evidence not previously submitted in this case, The Court has exercised its discretion to consider all the Exhibits to the Response, including the new evidence. 2 1 Under the CTCA, claims against a judicial entity and its employees 2 for money or damages must be presented in accordance with the provisions 3 of Chapter 1 (California Government Code § 900 et seq.) and Chapter 2 4 (California Government Code § 910 et seq.) of the California Government 5 Code. 6 for the presentation of claims to a judicial branch entity is California 7 Government Code § 915(c). Section 915(c)(1) provides that, when a claim 8 is asserted against “a superior court or a judge, court executive 9 officer, or trial court employee,” it shall be delivered or mailed to See California Government Code § 905.7. “court executive officer” of the The pertinent provision 10 the pertinent superior court. 11 Plaintiffs’ submission of a complaint to the Judicial Council does not 12 comply with Section 915(c)(1). 13 the Response does not affect the correctness of the Report’s conclusion 14 regarding the CTCA and plaintiff’s state law claims. Thus, the new evidence submitted with 15 16 Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and 17 recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and concludes 18 that this action must be dismissed. 19 Report, plaintiffs’ federal claims must be dismissed without leave to 20 amend. 21 CTCA, because the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction 22 are being dismissed, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental 23 jurisdiction over the numerous state law claims plaintiffs have alleged. 24 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). For the reasons set forth in the Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs had complied with the 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 27 28 (1) The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 3 1 (2) The Motion to Amend is DENIED; (3) Plaintiffs’ Sanctions Motion is DENIED; (4) Defendants’ 2 3 4 5 request for sanctions set forth in their 6 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Sanctions Motion is GRANTED, and sanctions in 7 the amount of $2,760 are imposed against plaintiff Ronald R. Shea; 8 9 (5) The Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and (6) This action is dismissed as follows: 10 11 12 13 (a) The First through Sixth and Eleventh Causes of 14 Action of the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice with 15 respect to defendants the State of California (which has 16 appeared as the Superior Court of California, County of Los 17 Angeles) and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael A. 18 Latin; 19 20 (b) 21 The Third and Fourth Causes of Action are dismissed with prejudice with respect to defendant Patti Sundstrom; and 22 23 (c) 24 The Seventh through Tenth Causes of Action are dismissed without prejudice. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 1 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on the parties. 3 4 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 5 6 DATED: February 8, 2012 7 8 VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
