N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AYM AN ISSA FARR

AJ, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DAVID C UNNINGHAM , Judge of the Supe rior C ourt of C a lifornia C ounty of Los Ange l e s; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-55091 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-06107-C AS-M R W
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M ay

4, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, B Y B EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED AUG 10 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Aym an Farra j, on be h a lf of him se l f and his two m inor c hildre n , a

ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his c a se for la c k of subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion
and the c ourt’ s subse que n t re fusa l to a llow him to file an am e nde d c o m

pla int. Farra j a n d Edith Sa la s we re divorc e d in 2010. During the

divorc e proc e e dings, the supe rior c ourt judge (Judge David C unningha m ) orde re d Farra

j to unde rgo psy c hologic a l e va luations with fa m ily and m arria ge psy c hologist, Dr. B ruc e Ha rshm a n. Dr. Ha rshm an dire c t e d Farra

j to se e k a dditiona l e va luations from psy c hologists Dr. C arl Hoppe and Ste ve n Sha ps. In 2011, Sa la s a

nd Fa rra j e nte re d into a stipula tion tha t gra nte d Sa la s sole c ustody

of the ir two c hildre n. In 2013, Judge C unningha

m issue d a

m ove -away

orde r that pe rm i tte d Sa la s a nd the c hildre n to m ove to India

with Sa la s’ s fia

nc é , Nitin Tha

kor. Afte r the m o ve -aw ay

orde r wa s issue d, Fa

rra j file d a c om

pla int in fe de ra l
c ourt a ga inst a ll pa

rtic ipa nts in thesta

te c ourt proc e e d ings (Sa la s, Tha kor, Judge C unningha

m , Dr. Ha rshm an, Dr. Hoppe , a

nd Sha ps). Fa rra j a lle ge d thre e c a

use s of
a c tion: (1) “ De c l ara tory

R e lie f - 42 U.S.C . Se c . 1983 - Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt - de nia l of e qua l prote c tion a nd due proc e s s;” (2) “ B ane Ac t - C ivil Rights C onspira c y

to Viola te Equa l Prote c tion a

nd Due Proc e ss R ights unde r the 14th Am e ndm e nt - 42 U.S.C . Se c .1983” and (3) de fa m a tion (a ga inst Dr. Ha rshm an only ). De fe nda

nts Sa la s, Tha

kor, Judge C unningha

m , Dr. Ha rshm an , a nd Dr.
2Hoppe m ove d to dismiss the c om p la int. Fa rra j did not oppose De fe nda nts’
m otions. On Oc tobe r 15, 2013, the distric t c ourt dismisse d the c a s e without pre judic e for la c k of subje c t

m atte r jurisdic tion a fte r c onc luding tha t Fa rra j ’ s fe de ra l la

w c la im s we re ba

rre d by the Rook e r–Fe ldman doc trine an d dom e stic re lations
a bse ntion doc trine
. 1 Having dispose d of the fe de ra l la wc l a im s, the distric t c ourt de c line d to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the sta te la w de fa m a tion c la im
. On Oc tobe r 26, 2013, Fa

rra j m ove d for re c onside ra tion unde r Fe d e ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b) on the ba sis of “ e xc usa ble ne gle c t ” and sought le ave to file a first a m e nde d c om

pla int (“ FAC ” ). 2 De fe nda nts oppose d Farra

j ’ s m otions. The distric t c ourt found tha t Fa rra j ha d “ n o t e sta

blishe d ‘ e x c usa

ble ne g l e c t’ to justify his fa i lure t o file an opposition to [D] e fe nda nts’ m otions to dism

iss” and that , e ve n if e xc usa

ble ne gle c t we re pre se nt, Fa rra j ha d not shown tha

t the c ourt’ s origina l de te rm ination tha t it la c ke d subje c t

m atte r jurisdic tion unde r the Rook e r–Fe ldman doc trine and fam ily la w a b se n tion doc trine wa s inc orre c t. The
c ourt a lso de nie d Fa

rra j’ s m otion to file

an FAC on the ba sis tha

t suc h filing would

1 The distric t c ourt dismi sse d the c la im s a ga inst Sha ps sua sponte . 2 Farra j a lso m ove d for re c onside ra tion unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e d ure 59(e ) (to a lte r or am e nd the judgm e n t), howe ve r Farra j la te r withdre w that m o tion a nd substitute d it with a

m otion unde r R

ule 60(b). 3be futile whe re Farra j’ s propose d FAC did not c ure the de fe c ts in the initia l
c om pla i nt. Fa

rra j a ppe a le d the c ourt’ s de nia l of both m otions. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 3 W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion thedistric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of a R ule 60(b)
m otion. Brione

s v . Riv ie ra Hote l & C

asino , 116 F.3d 379, 380 (9th C ir. 1997) (pe r c uriam ). The de nia l of a

m otion for le ave to a

m e nd is a lso re vie we d for a buse of disc re tion. Gomppe r v . VISX, Inc
. , 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th C ir. 2002). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Fa rra j’ s c om pla int ba se d on his fa ilure to opposethe m otions to dism iss. W he n a n a ppe lla n t fa ils to oppose

a m otion to dism

iss, he wa ive s the right to c o n te st dismissa l on a ppe a l. Silv as v . E*Trade Mortg. C orp. , 514 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [I] f a pa rty fa ils to
ra ise an obje c tion to a

n issue be fore judgm e nt, he or she wa ive s the right to
c ha lle nge the issue on a

ppe a l .” (quoting Doi v . Hale k ulani C orp. , 276 F.3d 1131, 1140 (9th C ir. 2002)). Fa rra j did not file

an opposition to the

de fe n da nts’ m otions to dismiss his c om

pla int. Nor did Fa

rra j file a FAC within thetim e pe rm itte d by Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 15(a )(1). Se e Fe d . R . C i v. P. 15(a )(1) (pe rm itting

3 W e GR ANT the Am e ric an-Ara

b Anti-Disc rim ination C om m itte e ’ s July

23, 2014 M otion for Le av e to File an Am ic u s B rie f. W e a lso GR ANT Fa rra j’ s Oc tobe r 28, 2015 M o tion to Ta ke Judic i a l Notic e . W e DENY Fa rra j ’ s Nove m

be r 17, 2015 M otion to Strike
. 4pla i ntiff 21 da y s from the date of se rvic e of a

m otion to dism

iss to filean am e nde d
c om pla i nt without le ave of the c ourt). Thus, the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in gra

nting De fe nda

nts’ m otions to dism

iss the initia l c om

pla int. Nor did the d istric t c o urt a

buse its disc re tion by

prohibiting Fa

rra j from filing his FAC without le ave of c ourt. Ne xt, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Fa rra j ’ s R ule 60(b)(1) m otion be c a

use Farra j’ s re a sons did not c onstitute “ e xc usa b le ne gle c t.”

“ [T] he de te rm ination of whe the r ne g le c t is e xc usa ble . . . de pe nds on a

t le a st four fa c t ors: (1) the da

nge r of pre

judic e to the opposing pa rty ; (2) the le ngth of the de la y and its potentia l im

pa c t on the proc e e dings; (3) the re a son for the de la

y ; a nd (4) whe the r the m o v ant a c te d in good fa ith.” Bate man v . U.S. Postal Serv . , 231 F.3d 1220, 1223–24 (9th C i r. 2000) (c iting P i one e r Inv . Se rv s. v . Brunsw ic k Assoc s . Ltd. P’ship , 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). Farra j’ s proffe re d re a sons for e x c usa ble ne gle c t we re : (1) Fa

rra j’ s c o unse l
wante d to c om

ple t e a c om pla int le tte r for de live ry

to the Los Ange le s Supe rior C ourt, c ritic i z ing Dr. Ha

rshm an’ s psy c hologic a l re ports, a n d (2) Farra

j’ s c o unse l
wa s wa iting to re c e i ve the tra n sc ripts of re c ordings from Farra j’ s the ra py se ssions with Dr. Ha

rshm an an d Sha p s “ to prove . . . the pe rjury [] Harshm a

n c om m itte d whe n filing his re

p orts c o n c e rning [] Farra

j.”
5Ne ithe r one of Farra j’ s re a sons c onstitute s “ e xc usa ble ne gle c t.” Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Fa rra j’ s R ule 60(b)(1) m otion. De nia l of Farra j’ s R ule 60(b)(1) m otion e nds the c a se . 4 Se e , e .g., Unite d State s v . Aguilar , 782 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th C ir. 2015) (disc ussing the
c ourt’ s duty

“ in prote c ting thefina lity of judgm e n t s tha t unde rlie s R

ule 60(b)(1)” (c ita tion omitte d)). The re fore , the distric t c o urt did not e rr by

de ny ing Fa

rra j’ s m otion for le ave to file a

FAC
. B e c a use we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dism i ssa l ba se d on Fa rra j’ s fa ilure to oppose the m otions to dism i ss a nd his fa ilure to m e e t the “ e xc usa ble ne gle c t ” sta nda rd, the re is no ne e d

to re a c h the Rook

e r-Fe ldman an d dom e stic re lat ions
a bste ntion issue s. AFFIR M ED.

4 Farra j’ s m otion for re c onside ra tion unde r R ule 60(b)(1) e ffe c tive l y c onve rte d the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l without pre judic e into dism

issa l with pre j udic e . B e c a

use the de nia l of the m otion for re c onside ra tion e n de d the c a se , Farra j c ould not subse que ntly

file a FAC
. 6