N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LORENE FOREM AN; EAR N EST A. FOREM AN, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. R OB ER T FREEDM AN, a n individual; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55124 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-01187-M M ARB B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M ic ha e l M . Ane llo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 24, 2016 ** B e fore : REINHAR

DT, W . FLETC HER , a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . Lore ne and Ea

rne st A. Fore m an a

ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in the i r a c tion a lle ging c la im s unde r the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t

(“ A DA” ) and the Fa i r Housing Ac t (“ FHA” ). W e have 

# FIL ED JUN 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Lope z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ). W e a ffirm . Eve n a ssum ing a

c a use of a c tion c ould be a lle ge d ba s e d on disa bility or ha ndic a p, the distric t c o urt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt be c a

use the Fore m ans fa ile d

to ra ise a ge n

u ine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe t

he r the ir phy sic a l im

pa irm e nts qua lify

a s disa bilitie s unde r the ADA or ha ndic a ps unde r the FHA. S e e 42 U.S.C . § 12102(2) (de fining disa bility unde r the ADA a s a

“ phy sic a l or m e nta l im

pa irm e nt tha

t substa ntia lly lim its oneor m ore [of a

pe rson’ s] m a

jor life a c tivitie s” ); 42 U.S.C . § 3602(h)(1) (sa m e de finition for ha

ndic a p unde r the FHA); se e also C

afasso, U.S. e

x re l. v . Ge n . Dy namic

s C 4 Sy s., Inc . , 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ To survivesum m ary judgm e nt, a

pla intiff m

ust se t forth non-spe c ulat ive e vide nc e of spe c ific fa c ts, not swe e ping c onc lusory a lle gations.” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the Fore m ans’ sta t e la w c la im s a

nd dismissing them without pre

judic e . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1367(c )(3); Parra v . Pac ifiC areof Ariz., Inc . , 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th C ir. 2013) (onc e a distric t c ourt dismisse s the only c la im s ove r whic h it ha d origina l jurisdic tion, it doe s not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing the re m a ining sta te la w c la im s ). 1 4 - 5 5 1 2 4

2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng the Fore m ans’ m otions for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l be c a u se the Fore m ans fa ile d to de m onstra te e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s. Se e Palme r

v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re v ie w a

nd e xc e ptiona l c i rc um sta

nc e s re quire m e nt for a p pointm e nt of c ounse l). W e re je c t a s without me rit the Fore m ans’ c onte ntion tha t de fe nda nts re fuse d to a n swe r inte rrogat orie s. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 5 1 2 4 3