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