(PS) Sanai v. Cobrae

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Cyrus Sanai, No. 2:22-cev-00528-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Darren Cobrae, et al., 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Cyrus Sanai! moves to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), ECF 18 | No. 43, and for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b), ECF No. 44. The motions raise nearly 19 | identical arguments, so the court addresses them together. 20 Under Rule 59(e), “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented 21 | with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 22 | unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 23 | Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule 60(b) “provides for 24 | reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 25 | discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or

' Sanai has previously represented himself as an attorney in this action. He is currently suspended from the practice of law. See In re Cyrus Mark Sanai, Nos. 10-O-09221, 12-O-10457, S$276140. The court therefore considers him a pro se litigant.

1 (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Id. (quoting Fuller v. M.G. 2 Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)). Sanai contends the court committed clear error. 3 This court previously adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss this 4 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See F&Rs, ECF No. 30, adopted in full, Prev. 5 Order, ECF No. 41. As explained in those filings, Sanai alleged he and defendant Darren Cobrae 6 are both California citizens. See, e.g., Prev. Order at 2. He later claimed Cobrae was actually a 7 citizen of Hawaii, but he did not prove that claim. See id. This court also agreed with the 8 Magistrate Judge that the complaint does not assert any claims arising under federal law. See id. 9 at 2–3. 10 Sanai argues this court and the Magistrate Judge clearly erred when they denied his 11 request for discovery to ascertain whether Cobrae was actually a Hawaii citizen. The court 12 declines to revisit this dispute. Sanai did not rely on this court’s diversity jurisdiction; he did not 13 allege the parties are diverse. See generally Compl, ECF No. 1. Sanai did not move to amend his 14 complaint to allege the parties have diverse citizenship. Nor do the documents Sanai now cites 15 show the parties have diverse citizenship. They are largely irrelevant and contain frequently 16 inflammatory claims about Cobrae’s personal relationships, properties, and intentions. Sanai’s 17 allegations about his previous litigation show, moreover, that jurisdictional discovery would be a 18 wasteful, distracting, and costly endeavor. Compare Compl. ¶¶ 5–18, ECF No. 1 (describing 19 litigation between United Grand Corp. and Malibu Hillbillies, LLC) with United Grand Corp. v. 20 Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, 36 Cal. App. 5th 142, 146–52 (2019) (summarizing litigation history, 21 which included contempt proceedings and sanctions orders against Sanai and his client, in part 22 based on wasteful litigation). 23 Sanai also argues this court clearly erred by misinterpreting the Supreme Court’s decision 24 in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982). Under Lugar, private people can be liable 25 as state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they are willful participants in joint activity with the 26 state or its agents. 457 U.S. at 941. Sanai’s complaint does not allege Cobrae or any Doe 27 defendants are state actors. He argues the court clearly erred because it did not permit him to 28 amend his complaint to assert new theories about state action. But as noted, Sanai did not request 1 leave to amend, and he did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to not grant 2 leave to amend. In any event, the court dismissed this action without prejudice to further 3 litigation in a court with jurisdiction. 4 The motions at ECF Nos. 43 and 44 are denied. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: July 20, 2023.