Ungureanu v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc., 032415 FED9, 13-16198
|Party Name:||ELIZABETH UNGUREANU; DANIEL UNGUREANU, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.; RONALD WOLFSON, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 24, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted March 10, 2015 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03109-TLN-KJN Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Elizabeth and Daniel Ungureanu appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their employment action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim, Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989), and its denial of a motion to remand, Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
Contrary to the Ungureanus' contentions, the district court properly treated defendants' motion to dismiss as timely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), (h)(2)(b) (describing time limits for filing a motion to dismiss). Further, their allegations do not identify any new fraud, and the application of claim preclusion was appropriate.
The district court properly denied the Ungureanus' motion to remand their state law claims to state court because the state and federal claims are part of the same case or controversy, affording the district court supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Bahrampour v. Lampert...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP