Cotti v. California Department of Human Services Director
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-02980
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cotti v. California Department of Human Services Director, Judge Freeman denied relief from judgment, denied amendment motions as moot, and vacated the hearing.
Plaintiffs Alice Cotti and Vladimir Serdyukov, whose motion for relief from judgment was denied and whose motions to amend the pleading were denied as moot.
What happened
Cotti v. California Department of Human Services Director began after Alice Cotti and Vladimir Serdyukov alleged that their minor children were removed from their home without adequate cause and that their rights were violated. They brought federal and state claims against multiple people and entities.
The court entered judgment against the plaintiffs on May 21, 2020, and they filed a notice of appeal on June 29. They then sought relief from the judgment, permission to add defendants and claims, and permission to file a fourth amended complaint.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman vacated the scheduled hearing and denied relief from the judgment because the court lacked authority to consider the late motion after the appeal was filed. The court denied the motions to amend the pleading as moot.
The detailed version
- Cotti v. California Department of Human Services Director · No. 5:18-cv-02980
- Beth Freeman
- July 7, 2020
Background
Alice Cotti and Vladimir Serdyukov filed the action in May 2018. They alleged that their minor children had been removed from their home without adequate cause and in violation of their rights. They asserted federal and state-law claims against numerous individuals and entities involved in the children’s removal.
After significant motion practice and several rounds of pleading, the action was dismissed. The court entered judgment against the plaintiffs on May 21, 2020. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June 29, 2020.
Motions after the appeal
About one week after filing the notice of appeal, the plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment, to add defendants and claims, and to file a fourth amended complaint. They did not specify whether they sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which governs motions to alter or amend a judgment, or Rule 60(b), which provides other grounds for relief from a judgment.
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal generally removes the district court’s authority over the case. A timely Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion may affect that rule, but the relevant filing period is 28 days after entry of judgment. The plaintiffs’ motion was filed more than 28 days after the May 21 judgment. The court also considered the plaintiffs’ statement that the COVID-19 virus had affected their ability to litigate, but concluded that the 28-day period for a Rule 59(e) motion could not be extended and found no basis to extend the applicable period for a Rule 60(b) motion.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman vacated the September 17, 2020 hearing. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment because the notice of appeal had removed the court’s authority to consider it and the motion did not qualify as a timely motion under the applicable appellate rule. The court denied as moot the motions to amend the pleading, including the requests to add defendants and claims and to file a fourth amended complaint. The court did not decide the underlying allegations concerning the children’s removal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.