Trout v. County of Madera

Background

Keith Trout, described as Calley Garay’s father and the guardian ad litem—an adult appointed to represent children in litigation—for Calley’s surviving children, sued the County of Madera and approximately 19 defendants. The lawsuit concerned Calley’s death, alleged abuse of her minor sons after her death, and an allegedly fraudulent transfer of real property.

The events occurred on July 14, 2020. Trout filed a government claim on January 7, 2021, and the County of Madera rejected it on February 19, 2021. The opinion states that this established an August 19, 2021 deadline to file suit under California Government Code section 945.6. Trout filed this action in the Northern District of California on August 5, 2021.

The defendants challenged the complaint and amended complaint, including through motions to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). On May 6, 2022, the court ruled that service on a former director of the California Department of Health Care Services was improper, no defendants resided in the Northern District, and venue was improper there. The court dismissed the operative complaint without prejudice to filing in the proper district. It did not reach the merits of the requested discretionary transfer or the motions under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Trout’s motion

Trout moved under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(6) to amend the dismissal order and resulting judgment. He asked the court to replace the dismissal with an order transferring the case to the Eastern District of California, set a new 21-day period to serve the new Director of the Department of Health Care Services after transfer, and remove a factual statement saying that a clinic had called a telephone number Calley had previously provided.

Because Trout filed the motion within 28 days after judgment, the court treated it under Rule 59(e), which permits an extraordinary remedy to correct a serious legal or factual error, consider newly discovered evidence, address a manifestly unjust decision, or account for an intervening change in controlling law. The court stated that a Rule 59(e) motion generally cannot be used to raise arguments that could reasonably have been made earlier.

Analysis and ruling

The court denied the request to transfer the case. It explained that transfer ordinarily serves the interest of justice when a plaintiff filed in the wrong district, particularly when dismissal could cause claims to become time-barred. But the court found that this case was different because Trout had pursued the Northern District despite the case’s connections to the Eastern District, where the opinion said the defendants and operative events were concentrated. The court characterized Trout’s conduct as blatant forum shopping and noted his earlier opposition to transfer to the Eastern District. It concluded that transfer was not in the interest of justice.

The court also denied the request for an additional 21 days to serve the Department of Health Care Services director. It found that this relief was unnecessary and outside the authority of the Northern District because the earlier dismissal of that defendant was without prejudice, leaving Trout the option of naming the entity in a new action in the Eastern District.

The court granted Trout’s request to correct the factual statement. It struck the statement that Lorena Blanco Elenez had called the telephone number Calley previously provided and replaced it with a statement that Elenez contacted Julio, Sr.’s residence and told him or other defendants about Calley’s appointment.

The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Trout’s motion to amend the order of dismissal, and denied Trout’s motion to amend the judgment. The case remained dismissed without prejudice to filing in the proper court, and the effective date of the order and judgment remained May 6, 2022.