N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DEB OR AH SANZAR O; M IC HAEL SANZAR O, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. ARDIENTE HOM EOW

NER S ASSOC IATION LLC ; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15067 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01143-PM P-R JJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Philip M . Pro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 12, 2013 ** B e fore : PR EGER SON, R EINHAR DT, a n d W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s. De bora h a nd M i c ha e l Sa

nz aro a ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing the ir a c tion unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983, the Am e ric a n s with 

# FIL ED MAR 20 2013 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 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Disa

bilitie s Ac t

(“ A DA” ), and the Fa ir Housing Ac t (“ FHA” ) for fa ilure to sta te a c la im . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Arizona v . Hark

ins Amuse me n t

Ente rs., Inc . , 603 F.3d 666, 669 (9th C i r. 2010). W e a ffirm

in pa rt, va c a te in pa

rt, a nd re m and. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the San z aros’ Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt c la im be c a use the Sa n z aros fa ile d to a lle ge tha t a ny de fe nda

nt is a sta te a c tor. Se e J ohnson v . K

n o w le s , 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th C i r. 1997) (e xpla ining the re quire m e nts of a c l a im

for re lie f unde r § 1983). The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t the Sanz aros fa ile d

to sta t e a c l a im unde r the A DA be c a

use the Ardie nte Hom e owne rs Assoc i a tion c lubhouse is a priva te prope rty . Howe ve r, priva te c lubs a nd fa c ilitie s a

re e xe m pt from the ADA only

if the y are “ not in fa c t

ope n to the public [.] ” 42 U.S.C . § 2000a (e ); s e e also 42 U.S.C . § 12187 (theADA doe s not a pply to priva te c lubs a nd fa c ilitie s e xe m

pte d by § 2000a ). The Sanz aros’ a lle ga tions tha t De bora h Sanz aro is disa

ble d within the m e aning of the ADA, tha t the Assoc iation de nie d he r disa bility -re late d a c c om m odations a

t the c lubhouse , a

nd tha t the Assoc iation a llows thepublic to use the c lubhouse for a fe e are suffic ie nt to sta t e a c la im unde r the ADA. Se e Hark ins Amuse me nt Ente rs. , 603 F.3d a t 670 (e xpla ining the re quire m e n ts of a n ADA c la im ). 1 2 - 1 5 0 6 7 2Dism issa l of the Sa n z aros’ FHA c la im a s duplic a tive of a sta

te c ourt a c tion wa s im prope r be c a

use the othe r a c tion is not in the sa m e c o urt a s the pre se nt a c tion and doe s not inc lude the San z aros’ FHA c la im . S e e Adams v . C

al. De p’t of He alth Se rv s. , 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th C ir. 2007) (a suit is duplic a t ive , a nd the re fore c onstitute s im

pe rm issible c la i m

splitting, if the c ourt, c a

use s of a c tion, re lie f sought, a nd pa rtie s are the sa

m e ); se e also N

oe l v . Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [O] ve rla

pping or e ve n ide ntic a l fe de ra l an d sta t e c ourt litiga

tion m ay proc e e d sim

ulta n e ously , lim ite d

only by doc trine s of a

b ste ntion a

nd c om ity [.] ” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing the Sanz aros’ m otions for re lie f from

judgm e nt be c a

use the San z aros fa ile d to e sta blish fra ud, m isre pre se ntation, or m isc onduc t by the opposing pa rty unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b)(3). Se e Sc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (re vie wing for a n a b use of disc re tion a

nd se tting forth grounds for re lie f from judgm e nt). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing the Sanz aros’ m otions for re c usa l be c a

u se those m otions we re untim e ly . Se e E. & J . Gallo W ine ry v . Gallo C

attle C o. , 967 F.2d 1280, 1294-95 (9th C ir. 1992) (re vie wing for an a b use of disc re tion a

nd c onc luding tha

t a m otion for re c usa l m a de a fte r e ntry of judgm e nt is pre sum

ptive ly untim e l y ). 1 2 - 1 5 0 6 7

3The Sanz a ros’ c onte ntions tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in c onside ring de fe nda n ts’ a lle g e dly lat e ple a dings a nd the arbitrat ion a

ward are unpe rsua sive . The Sanz a

ros’ m otion a sking this c o urt not to c o nside r de fe nda n ts’ answe ring brie f and the i r re que st tha t the c a s e be re m ande d to a diffe re nt distric t c ourt judge are de nie d. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

1 2 - 1 5 0 6 7 4