ELIZABETH UNGUREANU V. A. TEICHERT & SON, INC., No. 13-16198 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 24 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIZABETH UNGUREANU; DANIEL UNGUREANU, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 13-16198 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03109-TLNKJN v. MEMORANDUM* A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.; RONALD WOLFSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Elizabeth and Daniel Ungureanu appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their employment action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989), and its denial of a motion to remand, Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. Contrary to the Ungureanus’ contentions, the district court properly treated defendants’ motion to dismiss as timely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), (h)(2)(b) (describing time limits for filing a motion to dismiss). Further, their allegations do not identify any new fraud, and the application of claim preclusion was appropriate. The district court properly denied the Ungureanus’ motion to remand their state law claims to state court because the state and federal claims are part of the same case or controversy, affording the district court supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing when a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction). As a result, their argument regarding the timeliness of their motion to remand is irrelevant. Teichert’s request for fees and costs is denied without prejudice to filing a proper motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. AFFIRMED. 2 13-16198

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.