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