Rothschild v. Gildred

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 6, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-02105
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, Case No. 23-cv-02105-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD 9 v. ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT AND MOTION TO BIFUCRATE 10 STEPHANIE ANN GILDRED, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 17, 26 Defendants. 11

12 13 Pending before the Court are two motions from Plaintiff Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who 14 is unrepresented. One is a Motion to Add Additional Defendant1 (ECF No. 17) and the other is a 15 Motion to Bifurcate2 (ECF No. 26). The time for filing a response or opposition has passed.3 For 16 the reasons explained below, both motions are hereby DENIED. 17 I. MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT 18 On November 17, 2023, Mr. Rothschild filed a Motion to Add Additional Defendant 19 which requests leave to join Stephen Wagstaffe, District Attorney for San Mateo County, as a 20 defendant and assert federal claims against him for violation of Mr. Rothschild’s federal 21 constitutional rights. ECF No. 17. At no point does Mr. Rothschild contend that Mr. Wagstaffe 22 was involved in the events which gave rise to the existing claims in the First Amended Complaint 23 (FAC). Rather, Mr. Rothschild alleges that Mr. Wagstaffe has “effectively interfered” in the 24 1 Although Mr. Rothschild filed the motion on ECF as a “Motion for Hearing,” the caption page 25 describes it as a “Motion to Add Additional Defendant.” ECF No. 17 at 1. 2 Mr. Rothschild filed the motion on ECF as a “Motion to Bifurcate,” however, the caption page 26 describes it as “Opposing Motion to Combine and/or Consolidate the Two Cases CIV 1721 and CIV 2105.” ECF No. 26 at 1. For ease of reference, the Court will refer to the motion as a 27 “Motion to Bifurcate.” 1 adjudication of his claims in this and other cases Mr. Rothschild has filed in this District. Id. at 6.4 2 He makes no allegations as to how Mr. Wagstaffe has interfered. According to Mr. Rothschild, 3 Mr. Wagstaffe unfairly prosecuted him in state court and pursued his conviction in an unrelated 4 criminal case “for his record because he planned to run for Governor.” Id. Mr. Rothschild alleges 5 that this is a “personal” matter for Mr. Wagstaffe, and that Mr. Wagstaffe violated his civil rights 6 under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. 7 Although Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs courts to freely 8 give leave to amend “when justice so requires,” the circumstances here do not warrant providing 9 Mr. Rothschild such an opportunity. In determining whether to grant a motion to amend, courts 10 may consider, inter alia, “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, 11 repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the 12 opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Sharkey v. 13 O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 774 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 14 Mr. Rothschild was already granted an opportunity to amend his complaint, on July 27, 15 2023, after he filed a Motion to Amend/Correct requesting leave to amend. ECF Nos. 6, 8. He 16 did not join Mr. Wagstaffe as a defendant then despite his suggestion in the Motion to Add 17 Additional Defendant that the criminal case which Mr. Wagstaffe prosecuted has been ongoing for 18 a significant amount of time. See ECF No. 17 at 6 (“This case has been going on long after the 19 statutory laws of length and time of prosecution.”) More importantly, Mr. Rothschild requests 20 leave to add a defendant and federal claims against that defendant with no connection to the claims 21 presently asserted in the FAC. See Washington v. Lowe’s HIW Inc., 75 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1254 22 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (denying leave to amend where the plaintiff requested leave to amend “irrelevant 23 and unrelated defendants” with no relationship to “the employment claims alleged in this action.”) 24 Finally, Mr. Rothschild already filed a lawsuit in this District asserting claims against Mr. 25 Wagstaffe based on the alleged violation of his federal constitutional rights, with allegations that 26 are very similar to those made in the Motion to Add Additional Defendant. See Rothschild v. 27 1 Wagstaffe et al., Case No. 23-cv-05739-CRB. The undersigned screened Mr. Rothschild’s 2 complaint in that case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and eventually issued a report and 3 recommendation recommending that the complaint be dismissed. Id., ECF Nos. 11, 16. Because 4 not all parties had consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the case was reassigned to 5 The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, who adopted the report and recommendation, dismissed the 6 complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment for Defendants and against Mr. Rothschild. Id., 7 ECF Nos., 18, 19. Since Mr. Rothschild already had the opportunity to assert his civil rights 8 claims against Mr. Wagstaffe based on the same events described in the Motion to Add Additional 9 Defendant, there is no prejudice to denying him the opportunity to add Mr. Wagstaffe as a 10 defendant to this action. The motion is DENIED. 11 II. MOTION TO BIFURCATE 12 The Motion to Bifurcate is also DENIED. As an initial matter, the motion was improper 13 when brought because the two cases—this action and Rothschild v. The Pacific Companies, Case 14 No. 23-cv-01721—were not consolidated at the time. There was a pending Motion to Relate and 15 for Consolidation filed in The Pacific Companies (id., ECF No. 50) but the motion had not yet 16 been ruled on by the Court when Mr. Rothschild filed the Motion to Bifurcate. Moreover, 17 although the Court granted The Pacific Companies’ request to relate the two cases pursuant to 18 Civil Local Rule 3-12, it ultimately denied the request for consolidation. Id., ECF No. 54. The 19 cases are not and never have been consolidated, thus, they cannot as a procedural matter be 20 bifurcated. 21 More importantly, Mr. Rothschild’s Motion to Bifurcate is clearly intended as an 22 opposition to The Pacific Companies’ Motion to Relate and for Consolidation. But Mr. 23 Rothschild had already filed his Opposition to the Motion to Relate and for Consolidation in Case 24 No. 23-cv-01721, which is where that motion was filed. See id., ECF No. 52. The Court 25 considered Mr. Rothschild’s objections and his unrelated requests (a request to “oversee 26 communications” between the parties as well as a request to transfer the case(s) to “Tampa U.S. 27 District Court”) as presented in that Opposition and addressed them in its Order denying in part 1 there is nothing left to address by the Court. 2 I. CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons stated above, Mr. Rothschild’s Motion to Add Additional Defendant and 4 Motion to Bifurcate are both DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: May 6, 2024 7 8 Marry LIS ISN S 9 United/States Magistrate Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28