Bernstein v. Banco Popular North America
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-02204
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bernstein v. Banco Popular, Judge Freeman denied plaintiffs’ motion to alter judgment after dismissing their case for lack of federal jurisdiction.
The ruling affected plaintiffs Mary H. Bernstein, John L. Bernstein IV, John L. Bernstein III, and Elizabeth Tigano, and the defendants named in the order. It left in place the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling in state court.
What happened
In Bernstein v. Banco Popular North America, the court had previously dismissed the case without prejudice to refiling in state court because the parties were not completely diverse and the complaint raised no federal claims. The court then treated three motions filed by Mary H. Bernstein, John L. Bernstein IV, John L. Bernstein III, and Elizabeth Tigano, who were proceeding without lawyers, as one request to change or set aside the judgment.
The plaintiffs argued that the earlier decision contained a clear factual error and asked to amend their complaint to add federal statutory claims. The defendants argued that the court correctly found no federal jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had not identified new evidence that could not have been found earlier.
Judge Freeman denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter the Judgment. She found that the plaintiffs had not shown a clear legal or factual error, new evidence, a change in controlling law, or grounds for relief under any provision of Rule 60(b). She also concluded that adding new federal claims was not a proper use of a motion to change the existing judgment.
The detailed version
- Bernstein v. Banco Popular North America · No. 5:25-cv-02204
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
On July 22, 2025, the court granted Berding & Weil LLP’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court had found that there was no complete diversity between the parties and that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not assert federal claims. The court entered judgment the same day.
Mary H. Bernstein, John L. Bernstein IV, John L. Bernstein III, and Elizabeth Tigano filed three motions. The court construed them as one motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). The plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers. The court considered the matter without oral argument and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that the court’s earlier decision was based on a clear factual error because it did not discuss background facts concerning alleged abuses over many years. They also asked for permission to amend the complaint to plead violations of federal statutes and thereby establish federal-question jurisdiction.
The defendants argued that the court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that nothing in the complaint supplied federal jurisdiction. They also argued that the plaintiffs had not identified newly discovered evidence that could not have been found earlier through reasonable diligence.
Court’s Analysis
Under Rule 59(e), a court may alter or amend a judgment for reasons including a clear legal or factual error, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court found that the plaintiffs had identified none of those grounds. They did not explain how the original complaint established subject-matter jurisdiction, and they did not argue that the court’s jurisdictional decision was erroneous or manifestly unjust.
The court also found no basis for relief under Rule 60(b). The plaintiffs did not identify mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, a satisfied or discharged judgment, or extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that the dismissal was without prejudice to refiling in state court and concluded that this did not support relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
The court further explained that the plaintiffs were effectively seeking reconsideration of the court’s earlier denial of leave to amend rather than challenging the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that identifying new federal claims did not cure the jurisdictional defect in the original complaint. Because the court lacked jurisdiction over the original complaint, it could not use a motion under Rules 59(e) or 60(b) to consider new claims that had not previously been raised.
Disposition
The court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter the Judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.