Elizabeth Ungureanu; Daniel Ungureanu v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc.; Ronald Wolfson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIZABETH UNGUREANU; DANIEL
UNGUREANU,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.; RONALD
WOLFSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16198
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03109-TLN-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
MAR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

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, 356
F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing when a court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction). As a result, their argument regarding the timeliness of their motion to
remand is irrelevant.
Teichert’s request for fees and costs is denied without prejudice to filing a
proper motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
AFFIRMED.
13-16198 2

-- 2 of 2 --