Gavin et al v. University of California et al
Filing
18
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/26/17 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations 6 are ADOPTED IN PART; Plaintiffs' motion for removal from superior court 4 is DENIED; to the extent that Plaintiffs' motion 4 operated as a notice of removal, the state court action (Regents of the University of California v. Adeyemi et al., UD 16-1743) is REMANDED to Yolo County Superior, and the Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on Yolo County Superior; All claims a rising from the denial of lease extension are DISMISSED as barred by res judicata; If Plaintiffs wish to proceed on the ADA and Civil Rights claims that are not related to the lease extension, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to FILE a SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF to show cause why the action should not be DISMISSED as moot. This Supplemental Brief is due thirty days from the date of this order; Plaintiffs' state law claims (First, Second, and Tenth Causes of Action) are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; The Court will rule on Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 and motion for reconsideration 16 after receiving and considering Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief. (cc Yolo County Superior)(Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
LYNN GAVIN & THOMAS ADEYEMI,
9
10
11
No.
2:16-cv-2816-JAM-KJN PS
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et
al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
On December 2, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and
15
recommendations (ECF No. 6), which were served on the parties and
16
which contained notice that any objections to the findings and
17
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days.
18
December 16, 2016, and December 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed
19
objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 7, 8),
20
which have been considered by the court.
21
On
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed
22
findings of fact to which an objection has been made.
23
§ 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business
24
Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v.
25
Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009).
26
of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been
27
made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on
28
the applicable law.
28 U.S.C.
As to any portion
See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207,
1
1
208 (9th Cir. 1979).
The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law
2
are reviewed de novo.
See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School
3
Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
4
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and,
5
good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt
6
the findings and recommendations in part.
7
recommendations are amended to clarify that Plaintiffs’ claims
8
concerning the denial of the move out extension are barred by res
9
judicata rather than duplicative litigation.
The findings and
See Headwaters Inc.
10
v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2005) (“As
11
a general matter, a court may, sua sponte, dismiss a case on
12
preclusion grounds where the records of that court show that a
13
previous action covering the same subject matter and parties had
14
been dismissed.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
15
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
16
Plaintiffs’ state law claims, which are not part of the same case
17
or controversy as Plaintiffs’ remaining federal claims.
18
as Plaintiffs’ complaint raises ADA claims unrelated to the
19
denial of extension, see Compl. at ¶¶ 93–94, 114–144, 152–157
20
(concerning inaccessible thermostat, disabled parking, swimming
21
pool facilities, and shuttle services), and Civil Rights claims
22
based on inaccessible shuttle services and Defendants’ denial of
23
Plaintiff Adeyemi’s Resident Advisor application, see Compl. at
24
¶¶ 164–65, 170–73, the Court requires further briefing.
25
Court is informed that Plaintiffs no longer reside at the
26
residence at issue in this case and thus the action may be moot.
27
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
28
1.
The
Insofar
The
The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6) are
2
1
2
3
4
ADOPTED IN PART.
2.
Plaintiffs’ motion for removal from superior court (ECF
No. 4) is DENIED.
3.
To the extent that Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 4)
5
operated as a notice of removal, the state court action (Regents
6
of the University of California v. Adeyemi et al., UD 16-1743) is
7
REMANDED to the Yolo County Superior Court, and the Clerk of this
8
Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Yolo County
9
Superior Court.
10
11
12
4.
All claims arising from the denial of lease extension
are dismissed as barred by res judicata.
5.
If Plaintiffs wish to proceed on the ADA and Civil
13
Rights claims that are not related to the lease extension,
14
Plaintiffs are ordered to file a Supplemental Brief to show cause
15
why the action should not be dismissed as moot.
16
Supplemental Brief is due thirty days from the date of this
17
order.
18
19
20
6.
This
Plaintiffs’ state law claims (First, Second, and Tenth
Causes of Action) are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
7.
The Court will rule on Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in
21
forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and motion for reconsideration (ECF
22
No. 16) after receiving and considering Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
23
Brief.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated:
June 26, 2017
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?