N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HUKS ODIGW E , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. NATIONAL M ENTOR

HEALTHC ARE, LLC , DB A Ariz ona

M e ntor, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . Nos. 13-17067 14-15881 14-15908 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02396-M EA D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02396-B SB M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na M ark E. Aspe y , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding ** Ste phe n M . M c Nam e e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding B ridge t S. B a de , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d August 25, 2015 *** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d a ppe a ls, C huks Odigwea

p pe a ls pro se from the distric t



# FIL ED SEP 04 2015 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

rtie s c onse n te d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s the se c a se s are suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his e m ploy m e nt disc rim inat ion a c tion a s a disc ove ry sa nc tion unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 37(b). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion. Rio Props., Inc . v . Rio Int’l Inte rlink

, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th C ir. 2002). W e a ffirm a s to Nos. 13- 17067 a nd 14-15881, a

nd va c ate and re m and a s to theam ount of a ttorne y ’ s fe e s awarde d in No. 14-15908. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing Odigwe ’ s a c tion unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 37(b)(2) in light of Odigwe ’ s re p e ate d fa ilure s to c om ply with thedistric t c ourt’ s disc ove ry orde rs a nd a fte r finding tha

t the be havior wa s willful. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 37(b)(2); In rePhe ny lpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig . , 460 F.3d 1217, 1233 (9th C i r. 2006) (“ R ule 37 sa nc t ions, inc luding dism issa l, m ay

be im pose d whe re the viola

tion is due

to willfulne ss, ba d fa i th, or fa ult of thepa

rty .” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d)); Rio Props. , 284 F.3d a

t 1022 (disc ussing fivefa c tors c ourts m ust we igh in de te rm ining whe the r to dismiss a

c a se for fa ilure to c om

ply with a c ourt orde r). The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Odigwe ’ s m otion to re sc ind his c onse n t to proc e e d

be fore a m a gistra te judge be c a

use Odigwe did not show

“ e x tra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s.” 28 U.S.C . § 636(c )(4); se e also Dix on v . Ylst , 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th C ir. 1993) (a pa rty in a c i vil a c tion m ay

withdra w its c onse nt to

1 3 - 1 7 0 6 7 2proc e e d be fore a m a g istra te judge only

by showing e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s). The award of attorne y ’ s fe e s wa s wa rrante d unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 37(b)(2)(C ) be c a

use the re wa s no substa

ntia l justific ation for Odigwe ’ s fa ilure to obe y the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs. Howe ve r, Fe d . R . C iv. P. 37(b)(2) only

“ provide s for the award of re a sona b le e xpe nse s a

nd attorne y ’ s fe e s c a

use d by the fa ilure to obe y

a c ourt orde r to provideor pe rm it disc ove ry .” Toth v . Trans W orld Airline s, Inc . , 862 F.2d 1381, 1385 (9th C ir. 1988) (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). B e c a

use the am ount a

warde d inc lude d fe e s tha

t we re not “ c a

use d by the fa ilure to obe y

a c ourt orde r to provideor pe rm it disc ove ry ,” suc h a s fe e s inc urre d in re sponding to Odigwe ’ s disc ove ry re que sts, theam ount wa s “ not prope rly se gre gate d to thosee xpe nse s [pe rm itte d unde r] 37(b)(2).” Id. The re fore , we va c ate the M ay

5, 2014 orde r and re m and to thedistric t c ourt with instruc tions to a d just the attorne y ’ s fe e s a

ward a c c ordingly . W e do not c onside r Odigwe ’ s a rgum e nts re ga

rding the m e rits of his Title VII c la im s be c a

use his m otions for sum

m ary judgm e nt we re de nie d a s m oot. W e re je c t Odigwe ’ s c onte ntions re g arding due proc e ss a nd judic ia l bia 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. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ).
1 3 - 1 7 0 6 7 3Odigwe ’ s m otions, se t forth in the ope ning brie f for Nos. 14-15881 a nd 14-15908, a

re de nie d. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. Appe a l No. 13-17067; AFFIRM E D . Appe a l No. 14-15881; AFFIRM E D . Appe a l No. 14-15908; V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D.

1 3 - 1 7 0 6 7

4