T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e x c e p t a s p r o v id e d b y9 th C ir . R . 3 6 - 3 .

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s the s e c a s e s a r e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ). A cc o rd in g ly, R aise r’s r e que s tf oror a l a r gum e nti s de ni e d.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A A RO N RA I SER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. V E N T U R A C O L L E G E O F L A W ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N os . 10- 55097 10- 55362 10- 55619 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 2 5 4 - R GK AG R ME MOR AN DU M * A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R . G a ryK l aus ne r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In these consol i dat ed appeal s, A ar on R ai se r app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s a ct i on al l egi ng vari ou s f eder al and st at e l aw vi ol a t i ons a r i s i ng f

r om hi s e xpul s i on f

r om V e ntur aC ol l e ge of L a w . W e ha ve 

# FI LED JU L 10 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 55097 2 ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ad is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im , Mi l le rv . Y okoham a T

i r e C or p. , 35 8 F . 3d 61 6, 61 9 (9th C i r. 20 04 ), a n d f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad e n ia l o f

le a v e to a m e n d , Chodos v . W . P ubl ’ g C o. , 292 F . 3d 992, 1003 ( 9th C i r . 2002) . W e m aya f f i rm on a nygr ound s upport e d by th e r e c o r d . J

o h n s o n v . Ri v e rs i de H

e a l th c a r e S

ys . , LP , 5 3 4 F .3 d1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e a f

f irm in p a rt, a n dr e v e r s e a n dr e m a n din p a rt. D is m is s a l o f

th e e x to rtio n c la im a n dth e b r e a c h o f c o v e n a n t o f

g o o df a ith and fai r dea l i ng cl ai m w as prop erbecause the com m un i ca t i on s a ti ss ue ar e ab s o lu te lyp r iv ile g e d u n d e rC a lif o rn iaC iv il C o d e § 4 7 ( b ) . Se e H a g b e r gv . Ca l. Fe d. B ank

, F SB , 8 1 P .3 d 2 4 4 , 2 5 5 ( C a l. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ap p ly in g litig a tio n p r iv ile g e to c o m m u n ic a tio n s “in te n d e d to in s tig a te o f f ic ia l g o v e rn m e n ta l in v e s tig a tio n in to w r o n g d o in g , in c lu d in g p o lic e in v e s tig a tio n ” ) ; B lan chard v. D IR E C T V , Inc. , 2 0 C a l. Rp tr . 3 d 3 8 5 , 3 9 6 - 9 8 ( C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( ap p ly in g litig a tio n p r iv ile g e to prel i t i gat i on com m un i ca t i on s by a tt orneys ). Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e dw i th p r e j u d i c e Ra i s e r ’ s 4 2 U . S. C. §§ 19 83 and 1 98 5 cl ai m s bec ause R ai se r does nothave a ri gh tt o p ra ct i ce l aw b e f o r e af e d e r a l c o u rt th a t is p r o te c te db yth e C o n s titu tio n o rf e d e r a l s ta tu to ryla w . See L on g v. C ou nt

y of L os A ng eles , 4 4 2 F .3 d1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “T o s ta te ac l a i m unde r§ 1983, apl a i nt i f f m us ta l l e ge . . . tha tar i ghts e c ur e d bythe10- 55097 3 C o n s titu tio n o rla w s o f

th e U n ite dS ta te s w a s v io la te d .” ) ; G i anni niv . R e al , 911 F . 2d 354, 358 ( 9th C i r . 1990) ( “ [ T ] he r e i s no f unda m e nt a l r i ghtt o pr a c t i c e l a w or to ta k e th e b a re x a m in a tio n .” ) ; Calde i r a v . C ount yof Kauai , 866 F . 2d 1175, 1182 (9 th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ) (“ [T ] h e ab sen ce o f a sect i o n 1 9 8 3 d ep ri v at i o n o f ri g h t s p recl u d es a s e c t i on 1985 c ons pi r a c yc l a i m pr e di c a t e d on the s a m e a l l e ga t i ons . ” ( c i t a t i ons om i tt ed)) . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed w i th p re j ud i ce R ai se r’ s i nt ent i on al i nt er fe re nce w i th p rospec t i ve bu si ness op po rtun i ty ( “ II E P O ”) cl ai m because R ai se r f a ile d to a lle g e as p e c if

ic e c o n o m ic r e la tio n s h ip w ith w h ic h d e f e n d a n ts p u rp o rte d ly i nt er fe re d and has notdem on stra t ed thatam endm entof the com pl ai ntw ou l d cure th is d e f e c t. Se e B lank

v . Ki rw an , 70 3 P . 2d 58 , 70 (C al . 19 85 ) ( po t ent i al future r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n pl a i nt i f f a nd ac l a s s of

unknow n pa tr ons c oul d notbe char ac t er i ze d as an “ ec on om i c r el at i on shi p” w i th the prob abi l i ty of “ future ec on om i c benefi t ” t o sup po rtII E P O cl ai m ). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed w i th p re j ud i ce the breac h o f c on tra ct c l a i m r e l a t e d t o R a i s e r ’ s r e m ova l f r om ac l a s s a nd the r e vi s i on of hi s c urr i c ul um be c aus e the c urr i c ul um a gr e e m e nta tt a c he d t o the f i r s ta m e nde d c om pl a i nt , upon w h ic h R a is e rr e lie s , d o e s n o t p r o h ib it c h a n g in g h is c u rr ic u lu m . See D urni ngv.10- 55097 4 Fi rst B o sto n C o rp . , 81 5 F . 2d 12 65 , 12 67 (9th C i r. 19 87 ) ( courtm ayconsi der d o c u m e n ts a tta c h e d to th e c o m p la in t) . H ow ever , atthi s e ar l y s t age, di sm i ss al of the breac h o f c on tra ctcl ai m re l at ed t o the fa i l ure t o p rovi de R ai se r w i th a no n-ac adem i c e xp ul si on hear i ng w as i m pr ope rbe c aus e , unde rC a l i f orni al a w , i nabi l i tyt o s how a c tua l da m a ge s doe s not p r e c lu d e r e c o v e ryf

o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t. See C a l . C i v. C ode § 3360 ( “ W he n a brea ch of du ty has caused no appreci abl e detri m entt o the party a ff ec t ed, he m ay y e t r e c o v e rn o m in a l d a m a g e s .” ) ; Sw e e t v . J ohns on , 3 3 7 P .2 d4 9 9 , 5 0 0 ( C a l. C t. A pp . 19 59 ) ( pl ai nt i ff

ent i t l ed t o rec ov erno m i nal dam ages for bre ac h o f acontra ct d e s p ite in ab ilityto s h o w a c tu a l d a m a g e ) . T h a t R a is e rm a yh a v e lie do n h is appl i ca t i on for a dm i ss i on do es no tnegat e hi s r i gh tt o a heari ng because the po l i cy m anual , w hi ch R ai se r a l l eges w as partof the contra ctbetw ee n h i m se l f and V entura C ol l e ge of

L a w , pr ovi de s f

orahe a r i ng. D i sm i ss al of the A m er i cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ct(“ A D A ”) cl ai m w as im p r o p e rb e c au s e R a is e ra lle g e d f a c ts s u f f ic ie n t to s ta te av io la tio n o f th e A D A . See O ’G u i n n v. L o velo ck C o rr. C tr. , 502 F . 3d 1056, 1060 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( s e tt i ng f o rth e le m e n ts o f

T itle I I A D A c la im ) ; s e e al s o 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 2 1 0 2 ( 1 ) ( A ) , ( C) ( “d is ab ility ” u n d e rth e A D A in c lu d e s h a v in g , o rb e in g r e g a r d e da s h a v in g , a p h y s ic a l o rm e n ta l im p a irm e n t) ; D el. State Col l. v. R i ck s , 449 U . S . 250, 258- 5910- 55097 5 ( 1980) ( s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons be gi ns t o run on da t e pl a i nt i f f r e c e i ve s not i c e of

the di sc ri m i nat ory a ct ). I n de ny i ng R a i s e r ’ s m ot i on f orl e a ve t o a m e nd, i tdoe s notappe a rtha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d the ne w c l a i m s r a i s e d i n R a i s e r ’ s pr opos e d s e c ond am ended com pl ai ntfor f raud , i nt ent i on al m i sr epre se nt at i on , fa l se prom i se , brea ch of confi dence, and st at e c i vi l ri gh t s. O n rem and, the di stri ctcourtshou l d con si der i n the f i r s ti ns t a nc e w he the rthe s e pr opos e d c l a i m s s uf f i c i e nt l ys t a t e ac l a i m f

or r e l i e f , a nd w he the rthe r e i s undue de l a y , pr e j udi c e , orothe rgr ounds f orde ny i ng le a v e to a m e n d . See Mo o re v. Ka yp o rt P a cka g e E

xp ress , 8 5 5 F .2 d5 3 1 , 5 3 8 ( 9 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( di sc ussi ng fa ct ors t o con si der i n d enyi ng l eave t o am end). W e do notc ons i de ri s s ue s tha tw e r e notr a i s e d ornots upport e d bya r gum e nt in th e o p e n in g b r ie f

. Se e Ra t t le s n a ke Co a l i t i o n v . U. S. EP A , 509 F . 3d 1095, 1100 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). T he pa rt i e s ’ r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons , i nc l udi ng R a i s e r ’ s c ont e nt i ons r e ga r di ng hi s r ec usal m ot i on s, ar e unp er suas i ve. R a i s e r ’ s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rthi s c ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng r e m a nd i s de ni e d. A p p el l ees’ req u estfo r j u d i ci al n o t i ce i s d en i ed as u n n ecessary. E a c h p a rtys h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. A F F IR M E D i n p art; R E V E R S E D an d R E M A N D E D i n p art.