Gavin et al v. University of California et al

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING 11 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/30/2017. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LYNN GAVIN & THOMAS ADEYEMI,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2816-JAM-KJN PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On September 28, 2016, plaintiff Lynn Gavin commenced an action in this court against

18

defendants University of California, University of California Regents, University of California

19

Office of the President, UC Davis Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter, and UC Davis Family

20

Student Housing Director Emily Galindo. See 2:16-cv-2316-JAM-EFB. In short, Ms. Gavin

21

alleged that she is an individual with multiple disabilities who for several years had resided with

22

her son, Thomas Adeyemi, in student family housing that is provided for students with family at

23

UC Davis. However, Thomas graduated in June 2016, and the apartment lease expired at the end

24

of July 2016. Although the university granted several of Ms. Gavin’s requests for an extension of

25

time to find another apartment suitable for her disabilities, the university ultimately instructed Ms.

26

Gavin to vacate the apartment by the end of September 30, 2016. The university explained that it

27

was not feasible for Ms. Gavin and her son to stay longer, because the housing was needed for

28

incoming students and their families.
1

1

Claiming that the university failed to reasonably accommodate her disabilities in various

2

respects, plaintiff Gavin asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the

3

Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (for violations of the Due Process

4

Clause and the Equal Protection Clause), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as well as several

5

state law claims. Recently, on November 15, 2016, Judge Mendez, the district judge assigned to

6

the prior and the instant case, dismissed plaintiff Gavin’s complaint without leave to amend.

7

Less than two weeks after dismissal of that action, plaintiffs Lynn Gavin and her son,

8

Thomas Adeyemi, commenced the instant action against the University of California, the

9

University of California Regents, University of California President Janet Napolitano, U.C. Davis

10

Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter, and UC Davis Family Student Housing Director Emily

11

Galindo. Although this second action adds Ms. Gavin’s son, Thomas, as a plaintiff, and appears

12

to add some additional claims, plaintiffs’ claims are all grounded on defendants’ purported failure

13

to reasonably accommodate plaintiff Gavin’s alleged disabilities and arise from the same

14

transactional nucleus of facts. Indeed, the filing of this second action appears to be motivated

15

purely by plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the outcome of the previous action in this court.

16

Therefore, on December 2, 2016, the court issued findings and recommendations

17

recommending that the instant action be dismissed as duplicative. (ECF No. 6.) As the court

18

noted in the findings and recommendations, if plaintiffs believe that the court erred in its

19

adjudication of the first action, the proper remedy is to move for relief from the final judgment in

20

the first action or to file an appeal of the first action, not to file a second duplicative action. Since

21

the issuance of the findings and recommendations, plaintiffs filed objections (ECF No. 7), which

22

remain pending before the district judge, as well as a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court

23

of Appeals (ECF No. 8).

24

Thereafter, on January 26, 2017, plaintiff Thomas Adeyemi filed a motion for an

25

emergency stay. (ECF No. 11.) Liberally construed, the motion seeks reconsideration of the

26

undersigned’s findings and recommendations, as well as an order staying the judgment entered in

27

an unlawful detainer action filed in state court against plaintiffs. It appears that the state court has

28

ordered plaintiffs’ eviction to take place on January 31, 2017.
2

1

Having carefully reviewed plaintiff Adeyemi’s motion, the court finds no proper basis to

2

reconsider its findings and recommendations or to stay the state court’s unlawful detainer

3

judgment. Plaintiff’s Adeyemi’s arguments lack merit and do not present a legal impediment to

4

the lawfully scheduled eviction. As such, plaintiffs’ motion is denied. However, such denial is

5

without prejudice to seeking appropriate relief from the assigned district judge or the Ninth

6

Circuit Court of Appeals.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Adeyemi’s motion for an

8

emergency stay is DENIED. This order resolves ECF No. 11.

9

Dated: January 30, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3