Herterich v. Wiss
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:21-cv-04078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Herterich v. Wiss, Judge Beeler denied Herterich’s motion to change the judgment dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Norman Bartsch Herterich’s request to change the prior judgment was denied, leaving the dismissal of his complaint against Mary E. Wiss and the other named defendants in place.
What happened
In Norman Bartsch Herterich v. Mary E. Wiss, et al., the court had dismissed Mr. Herterich’s complaint against a Superior Court judge and nine appellate justices for lack of authority to hear the case. Mr. Herterich asked the court to change that judgment under a federal rule allowing correction of serious errors.
The court explained that changing a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy. It may be appropriate when there is new evidence, a clear legal or factual error, an obviously unfair result, or a change in controlling law. The court found that none of the reasons Mr. Herterich gave met that standard.
Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion. She said the earlier dismissal rested entirely on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that describing Mr. Bartsch as the plaintiff’s “alleged father,” along with a grammatical correction, did not identify an error on which the judgment was based.
The detailed version
- Herterich v. Wiss · No. 3:21-cv-04078
- Laurel Beeler
- Oct. 8, 2021
Background
The court previously dismissed Mr. Herterich’s complaint against a Superior Court judge and nine appellate justices. In this order, the court considered Mr. Herterich’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a court to alter or amend a judgment in limited circumstances.
The court stated that the earlier dismissal was based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to decide the case. The court also stated that it had issued no other holdings on separate grounds for dismissal.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration of a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. Under the standards discussed in the order, relief may be appropriate based on newly discovered evidence, a clear error or manifestly unjust result, an intervening change in controlling law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments. The Northern District of California’s local rules also generally require permission before filing a motion for reconsideration and limit repetition of arguments previously made.
Analysis
The court concluded that none of the three grounds Mr. Herterich presented satisfied the applicable standard. First, the court said its prior dismissal rested entirely on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Second, it held that the court’s description of Mr. Bartsch as the plaintiff’s “alleged father” and a grammatical correction identified by Mr. Herterich were not errors of law or fact on which the judgment was based.
Disposition
The court denied Mr. Herterich’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The order therefore left the prior judgment in place. It did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.