Bernstein v. Lee

Background

Elizabeth Tigano and her sister, Mary Bernstein, represented themselves in two related actions against the Alameda County Superior Court and several Alameda County Superior Court judges. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the first action, Case No. 3:24-cv-00131, and then filed a nearly identical action, Case No. 3:24-cv-07001. The court related the two cases under Civil Local Rule 3-12.

In the second action, the defendants moved to dismiss. After granting the plaintiffs two extensions of several months to oppose the motion, the court dismissed the action without leave to amend. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and absolute judicial immunity. Judgment was entered for the defendants.

Post-judgment filings

After the dismissal and judgment, the plaintiffs filed more than 20 documents in Case No. 3:24-cv-07001 and several more in Case No. 3:24-cv-00131, totaling nearly 3,000 pages. The order addressed those filings.

Motions to alter or amend the judgment

The plaintiffs filed at least two motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a court to alter or amend a judgment in limited circumstances. The court explained that such a motion may be granted to correct a clear legal or factual error, consider newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, prevent a clear injustice, or account for an intervening change in controlling law. It cannot be used to relitigate earlier matters or raise arguments that could have been made before judgment.

The plaintiffs argued that the court made a factual error because they meant to file their case in San Jose rather than San Francisco. They also challenged the decision to relate the two actions, the denial of leave to amend, and the decision to rule without oral argument. The court rejected these arguments, reasoning that they could have been raised earlier and reflected disagreement with procedural rulings rather than a clear legal or factual error. The court also stated that relating the cases was appropriate because they involved virtually identical parties and claims, and that the plaintiffs’ arguments about amendment repeated earlier contentions. The Rule 59(e) motions were denied as part of the court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ requests for relief were denied.

Motions to seal and request to reopen the first case

The plaintiffs filed nearly identical administrative motions to seal in both cases, attaching their own medical records and those of a third party. The court granted the motion to seal in Case No. 3:24-cv-00131 on that basis.

That motion also referred to Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, and appeared to seek reopening of the voluntarily dismissed first case. The court held that the plaintiffs had not provided a basis for reopening it. The motion filed in Case No. 3:24-cv-07001 referred to Rule 59 but otherwise contained the same materials; the court denied that motion because the plaintiffs had not provided a basis for relief.

Motion to disqualify

To the extent the plaintiffs sought to renew their request to disqualify Judge Corley, the court denied it. The court had previously denied a disqualification motion in Case No. 3:24-cv-00131. It stated that the plaintiffs had not sought reconsideration of that decision and that a request made after judgment would be improper under the applicable local rule. The court also found that any disqualification request in the second case was untimely and did not establish a basis for disqualification.

Other filings and disposition

The plaintiffs’ other filings included declarations, photographs, court documents, and declarations attributed to the plaintiffs’ deceased mother and other family members. The court stated that these materials showed distress but did not provide a legal basis for relief.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ requests for relief, stated that it would not consider further filings in the closed cases, and advised that any challenge to the court’s rulings must be made by filing a notice of appeal. The order specifically disposed of Docket Nos. 46 and 47 in Case No. 3:24-cv-07001.