(PS) Mehl v. Green ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GAVIN MEHL, et al., No. 2:21-cv-01861-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARREN GREEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs Gavin Mehl and Ron Cupp’s 18 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Extension of Time to file a notice of appeal (ECF No. 68) 19 and Motion for Clarification of the Court's August 24, 2023, Order (ECF No. 69). Defendant 20 Warren Green and his codefendants (collectively, “Defendants”) did not file an opposition to 21 either motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 In October 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging violations of 2 certain state and federal consumer protection laws. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants moved to dismiss 3 the complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiffs subsequently amended their 4 complaint and the Court denied as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) 5 Defendants then moved to strike, or in the alternative, dismiss the first amended complaint 6 (“FAC”). (ECF No. 18.) 7 In September 2022, the magistrate judge made findings and recommended the Court deny 8 Defendants’ motion to strike but dismiss with leave to amend Plaintiffs’ federal claims and 9 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. (ECF. No. 38.) 10 Later that month, the Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 11 and denied Defendants’ motion to strike and dismissed with leave to amend Plainitffs’ FAC. 12 (ECF No. 40.) 13 In October 2022, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint (“SAC”) against 14 Defendants, alleging the same violations of state and federal laws. (See ECF No. 43.) 15 Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, Plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition, and Defendants 16 filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 44, 47, 50.) 17 In June 2023, the magistrate judge made findings as to the SAC and recommended the 18 Court dismiss without leave to amend Plaintiffs’ federal claims and decline to exercise 19 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. (ECF. No. 58.) On August 24, 20 2023, the Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and 21 dismissed without leave to amend Plainitffs’ SAC. (ECF No. 66.) One week later, Plaintiffs 22 contemporaneously filed the instant motions. (ECF Nos. 68, 69.) 23 In their motion for clarification, Plaintiffs contend they are uncertain about the scope of 24 the Court’s ruling and request clarification on the effect of: (1) the Younger and/or Pullman 25 abstention doctrines on their case; (2) their purported reservation of federal claims under England 26 v. La. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 375 U.S. 411 (1964) and Jennings v. Caddo Par. Sch. Bd., 531 27 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1976); and (3) the notice of filing of bankruptcy filed by Defendant PS 28 Funding, Inc. (ECF No. 69 at 6.) In their motion for an extension of time, Plaintiffs maintain 1 excusable neglect or good cause exists for an extension of time to file their notice of appeal 2 because a determination on their motion for clarification, filed on the same day as their motion for 3 an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, is necessary to properly present their claims before 4 the Ninth Circuit. (See ECF No. 68 at 2, 4, 6; ECF No. 69 at 2, 4, 6–7.) 5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requires parties to file a notice of appeal “within 6 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). A 7 district court may, however, extend the time to file a notice of appeal if “a party so moves no later 8 than 30 days after the time prescribed” and “that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” 9 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). With certain limitations, if a party files in the district court a motion 10 under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b), 52(b), 54, 59, or 60, the deadline to file a notice of 11 appeal runs “from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion.” Fed. R. 12 App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). 13 The Court construes Planitiffs’ motion for clarification (ECF No. 69) as a motion for 14 amended or additional findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b). See Hebbe v. Pliler, 15 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (court must construe pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally). The 16 amended or additional findings Plaintiffs seek, however, amount to legal advice, which the Court 17 cannot provide. See, e.g., Figueroa v. ZBS Law, LLP, No. 5:23-cv-00868-SSS-SHKx, 2023 U.S. 18 Dist. LEXIS 111931, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2023) (court cannot provide legal advice to pro se 19 litigants); Kelly v. Allen, No. 23-cv-00966-JST, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92068, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 20 May 25, 2023) (same). For example, Plaintiffs ask the Court what “is the effect of the NOTICE 21 of FILING OF BANKRUPTCY Upon the Record as to PS Funding, Inc. by PS Funding, Inc., 22 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. (ECf No. 61)?” (ECF No. 69 at 6.) An answer to that question would 23 undoubtedly constitute legal advice from the Court, which the Court cannot do. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification (ECF No. 69). 2 || Because the Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification under Rule 52(b), however, 3 | Plaintiffs have 30 days from the electronic filing date of this Order to file a notice of appeal. Fed. 4 | R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Thus, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of 5 || time (ECF No. 68). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | Date: October 10, 2023 /) Sf, 11 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28