1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL V. MORILHA, Case No. 22-cv-03565-JST

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9 v. DISMISS

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Re: ECF No. 22

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

11 Defendant.

12

13 Now before the Court is Defendant Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara’s 14 (“Superior Court”) motion to dismiss. ECF No. 22. The Court will grant the motion. 15 Plaintiff Daniel V. Morilha filed his complaint in this action on June 16, 2022. ECF No. 1. 16 He filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on August 29, 2022. ECF No. 17. He brings claims 17 against the Superior Court for breach of contract; fraud; “abuse of process”; intentional infliction 18 of emotional distress; “conspiracy for deprivation of rights”; violation of the Equal Protection 19 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 20 Amendment. Id. The facts alleged in the complaint arise from a dissolution proceeding in the 21 Superior Court. FAC ¶ 3 (“Plaintiff has been a victim of fraud during a dissolution proceeding 22 held by the Santa Clara Superior Court.”). In sum, Morilha alleges that the Superior Court erred 23 by not enforcing a premarital agreement; awarding attorney’s fees to his former spouse; 24 incorrectly dividing the parties’ assets; and freezing his assets. See id. passim. He also makes 25 allegations against his former spouse and her attorney, e.g., id. ¶ 147, but neither of them is a party 26 to the FAC. 27 1 claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. “If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong 2 an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based 3 on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” Noel v. 4 Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower 5 federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by ‘state-court losers’ challenging 6 ‘state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.’” Lance v. 7 Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp, 544 8 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). The court must refuse to hear a “forbidden de facto appeal from a judicial 9 decision of a state court” and “must also refuse to decide any issue raised in the suit that is 10 ‘inextricably intertwined’ with an issue resolved by the state court in its judicial decision.” Noel, 11 341 F.3d at 1158. 12 “A claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment if the federal claim 13 succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it, or if the relief 14 requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling.” 15 Fontana Empire Ctr., LLC v. City of Fontana, 307 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks 16 and citations omitted). “Where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order 17 to find in favor of the plaintiff, the issues presented to both courts are inextricably intertwined.” 18 Doe & Assocs. Law Offs. v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, the district 19 court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint, like Morilha’s, that asks the court to 20 “scrutinize the state court’s application of various rules and procedures pertaining to his case.” 21 Allah v. Super. Ct., 871 F.2d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by rule on other grounds, as 22 stated in Harmston v. City and County of San Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 Second, Morilha fails to allege that he complied with the State of California’s claim 24 presentation requirement. “As part of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 25 900 et seq. establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public 26 entity.” State of California v. Super. Ct., 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1237 (2004). One such condition is 27 that “a plaintiff must timely file a claim for money or damages with the public entity.” Id. (citing 1 Code § 954.4).! And when a plaintiff files his complaint against the public entity, he “must allege 2 || facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement.” /d. at 1243. 3 Morilha’s FAC does not allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement. In his 4 || opposition, he states correctly that the Government Code “provides that under certain conditions a 5 court may relieve a party from” the presentation requirement. ECF No. 25 at 8. For example, “[i]f 6 a public agency as defined by Gov. Code, § 53050 fails to file the information required by Gov. 7 Code, § 53051, the failure of a claimant to present a claim as required by Gov. Code, § 945.4 does 8 || not constitute a bar or defense to the maintenance of a suit against that public agency.” Eileen C. 9 Moore & Michael Paul Thomas, Cal. Civ. Prac. Procedure § 1:56 (citing Cal. Gov. Code, § 946.4). 10 || Also, “[i]f an application for leave to present a late claim is denied or deemed to be denied 11 pursuant to Gov. Code, § 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the 12 || petitioner from the requirement that he or she present a claim prior to filing suit.” Jd. § 1:69 13 (citing Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (a)). Morilha does not allege either of these circumstances, 14 || however, nor any other exception to the claim presentation requirement. Thus, his claims are 3 15 barred. a 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Superior Court’s motion is granted. Dismissal is without 3 17 leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 18 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 1, 2023 .

71 JON S. TIG 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 07 ' California Government Code § 945.4 states, in relevant part: “[N]o suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity . . . until a written claim therefore has been presented to the 2g || public entity and has been acted upon... .”