Bernstein v. Lee
3:24-cv-00131
N.D. Cal.Jun 16, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, Elizabeth Tigano and Mary Helen Bernstein, both acting pro se, initiated two lawsuits against the Alameda County Superior Court and its judges, making similar claims in both actions.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their first action and refiled a nearly identical suit, leading the court to relate the cases under Civil Local Rule 3-12 due to substantial overlap.
- The court dismissed the second action without leave to amend, finding the claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and absolute judicial immunity.
- Following dismissal, Plaintiffs filed over 20 post-judgment motions and related filings, totaling nearly 3,000 pages, seeking various forms of post-judgment relief.
- Plaintiffs sought to alter/amend judgment, seal filings containing medical records, reopen the dismissed case, and disqualify the presiding judge, relying in part on newly decided Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment | Cited errors of fact and procedural rulings as grounds | No manifest error or procedural impropriety | Denied; disagreement, not legal error |
| Motions to Seal | Presented medical records, cited confidentiality | Not contested (own records, third-party privacy) | Granted for confidential materials |
| Motion to Reopen (Rule 60(b)) | Referenced recent SCOTUS case, sought reopening | No basis for relief or application of the decision | Denied; no legal basis provided |
| Motion to Disqualify Judge | Renewed prior motion, cited bias | No grounds for disqualification, untimely | Denied; untimely, no merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2011) (outlines four grounds for Rule 59(e) motions to amend or alter judgment)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (Rule 59(e) not to relitigate matters or present new evidence available earlier)
- Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59(e) cannot raise new arguments post-judgment)
- Davies v. Comm’r, 68 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1995) (timeliness and requirements for judicial disqualification motions)