N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FLOYD C HODOSH; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. JOHN SAUNDER S; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-56252 D.C . No. 8:20-c v-01326-C JC -KES
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 orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 19, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd DOR SEY, ** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts (Appe lla

nts) a ppe a l from

the orde rs de ny ing the ir
m otion to disqua

lify Distric t Judge C o rm a c J. C arne y and dismissing the ir c la im s
a sse rting R a c ke te e r Influe nc e d a nd C orrupt Orga

niz ations (R

IC O) viola

tions, 

# F IL ED DEC 16 2021 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne v a da , sitting by de signa tion.R IC O c onspira c y , a n d unjust e nric hm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w dism issa ls unde r the Rook e r-Fe ldman doc trine de
novo. 1 Se e N

oe l v . Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2003). W e re vie w for
a buse o f disc re tion the de n i a l of a m o tion to re c use . Se eUnite d State s v . He rnande z , 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th C ir. 1997) (pe r c uriam ). W e a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s ruling in its e ntire ty . Just a s in sta

te c o urt a nd in a pre vious fe de ra l a c tion, 2 Appe lla nts a lle ge a va st c onspira c y a

m o ng a ppe lle e s a nd num e rous non-de fe nda n t c oc onspira tors— now inc luding thepre siding distric t c ourt judge , a m e diation orga niz ation, form e r C a lifornia Attorne y s Ge ne ra l, a

nd m any m e m

be rs of the C a lifornia sta te judic i ary

— t o de prive the m of prope rty . Se e Eic he rly , 721 F.App’ x . at 626; se e also C hodosh v . Palm Be a c h Park Ass’n (PBPA) , No.

1 Se e Rook

e r v . Fide lity

Trust C o. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Distric t of C olumbia C

ourt of Appe als v . Fe ldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 2 Appe l la nts brought mate ria lly

sim ila r c la im s in 2016, then fram e d a s viola tions of theDue Proc e ss C la use and the Truth in Le nding Ac t (TILA), bre a c h of fiduc ia ry duty , a nd a iding a

nd a be tting of the

sa m e , e xc e pt tha

t the sta te c ourt judge s we re nam e d a s de fe nda nts ra the r tha n, a s now, c o -c onspira

tors but not de fe nda n ts. Se e Eic he rly

v . Moss , No. SAC V 16-02233-C JC (KESx), 2017 W L 6021426, a

t *2 (C .D. C a l. M ar. 29, 2017). Thedistric t c ourt dismisse d tha t c a se unde r Rook

e r-Fe ldman with pre

judic e . Se e id. at *3. This C ourt a ffirm e d tha t Rook e r-Fe ldman ba

rre d pla intiffs’ fe de ra l c la im s, but re m a n de d for dism issa l without pre

judic e to the c l a im s be ing “ re a sse rt[e d] in a c om pe te nt c ourt.” Eic he rly v . O’Le ary , 721 F.App’ x 625, 627 (9th C ir. 2018). 2G053798, 2018 W L 6599824, a

t *11-13 (C a l. C t . App. De c . 17, 2018). Appe lla nts
se e k dam a ge s for the a c tions of thea lle ge d c onspira c y

a lthough the

sta te a ppe lla te
c ourt rule d tha

t no c onspira c y

e xists, a nd for loss of the

sa m e prope rty rights tha

t the s tat e c ourts ha

ve re pe ate dly

he ld Appe lla

nts ne ve r ha d
. Se e C

hodosh v . PBPA , 2018 W L 6599824, a

t *1, *11-13 &n.22; se e also C hodosh v . Saunde rs , No. SAC V 20-01326-C JC (KESx), 2020 W L 7020303, a t *1-*2 (C .D. C a l. Nov. 5, 2020). And Appe lla

nts c onsiste ntly

c onc e d e tha

t the c a use s of the ir injury

we re the s tat e c ourts’ a lle ge dly wrongful rulings. The Appe lla

nts’ argum e nt tha

t the y c an none the le ss a

va il the m se lve s of the
e xtrinsic fra

ud e xc e ption to the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc trine be c a use the de c i ding judge s , a lle ge d to be c o-c onspira tors, a re not e quiva l e nt to thec ourt tha t m a de wrongful rulings ha s no support in Ninth C irc uit c a se la w a nd would signific antly
e xpa nd the e x trinsic fra

ud e xc e ption. K

ougasian v . TMSL, Inc
. , 359 F.3d 1136 (9th C ir. 2004), e xpla ine d tha t the e xtrinsic fra

ud e xc e ption a

pplie s only

whe n a fe de ra l c o urt pla i n tiff “ is a lle ging a wrongful a c t by

the a dve rse pa

rty ” whic h

“ pre ve nts a

pa rty from pre se n ting his c la i m

in c ourt,” not whe n

a pla intiff sole ly
a lle ge s “ a le ga l e rror by the sta

te c o urt.” Id . at 1140-41 (c ita t ion om itte d). B ut, a s e xpla ine d, Appe l l ants ha d the opportunity to pre se nt the ir c la im s in sta te c ourt, a nd the b a sis of Appe l la

nts’ a sse rte d injury

an d R IC O c la im

is not a wrongful a c t by
3the a dve rse pa rty but ra the r the sta

t e c ourt’ s purporte dly

“ wrongful[]
a djudic at[ion] ” tha

t the y we re not e ntitle d to da m a g e s. The distric t c ourt thus properly dism i sse d Appe l la

nts’ a c tion for la c k of subje c t-m atte r jurisdic tion unde r the Rook e r-Fe ldman doc trine be c a use it wa s in pa rt a “ d e fa c to a

ppe a l” of prior sta

te -c ourt de c isions a

nd, to thee xte nt it wa s not, it ra ise d only c l a im s “ ine xtric a bly inte rtwine d” with theissue s de c ide d in those sta te -c ourt de c isions. N

oe l , 341 F.3d a

t 1163–65. If “the injury a lle ge d by

the fe de ra l pla intiff re sulte d from the sta te [-] c ourt judgm e nt itse lf,” the c a se m u st be dism isse d. Bianc hi v . Ry laarsdam , 334 F.3d 895, 900–01 (9th C i r. 2003) (c ita tions
om i tte d); se e also C

oope r v . Ramos , 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th C i r. 2012) (e xpla ining that c la im s, a s we ll a s re q

ue sts for re lie f “ c ontinge nt upon a finding tha t the sta te
c ourt de c ision wa s in e rror” are “ ine xtric a bly inte rtwine d” with sta

te -c ourt de c isions whe n

fe de ra l a d

judic ation “ would im

pe rm i ssibly

unde rc ut the sta

te ruling on the

sa m e issue s” (c i tation a

nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d )). Appe lla nts a lso se e k to disqualify Judge C arne y

unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 144 a nd 455. “ Se c tion 144 provide s a proc e d ure for a pa

rty to re c use a

judge . Se c tion 455 im pose s a n a ffirm ative duty

upon judge s to re c use the m se lve s.” Yagman v
. Re public Ins. , 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th C i r. 1993). Unde r both sta tute s, disqua lific ation is a

ppropria te if “ a re a sona ble pe rson with knowle dge of a l l the
4fa c t s would c onc lude that the judge ’ s im pa rtia lity m ight re a sona

bly be que stione d. . . .” Id. (c i t ations a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Appe lla nts
argue that Judge C arne y

should ha

ve be e n disqua lifie d be c a u se he rule d

a ga inst the m in the ir prior fe d e ra l c a se and this C ourt “ re ve rse d” tha t ruling. 3 B ut this C ourt did not “

re ve rse ” the distric t c ourt in thepre vious a c tion—it a ffirm e d the dism issa l a

n d re m a n de d
. S e e Eic he rly , 721 F. App’ x at 627–28. And, re g a rdle ss,
a dve rse rulings by

the distric t c ourt provideno ba sis for re c usa l. Se e Unite d State s
v . Studle y , 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th C ir. 1986). W e c onc lude , the re fore , tha t the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing Appe lla

nts’ m otion to disqua lify Judge C arne y . This litiga

tion ha s dra gge d on unne c e ssa rily for y e a rs a n d is now pe rilously
c lose to frivolity
. Se e Ingle v . C irc uit C ity , 408 F.3d 592, 595 (9th C ir. 2005) (de s c ribing a

n a p pe a l a s frivolous “ if the re sult is obvious or the a ppe l la nt’ s
argum e nts a

re wholly without m e rit” ) (c ita

t ion om itte d). Appe lla

nts should
c onside r the m se lve s wa

rne d tha t a ny future filings a sse rting the s e m e ritle ss c la im s
m ay re sult in the

im position of substa

ntia l m one ta

ry sa nc tions. S

e e id
.

3 Appe l la nts’ spe c ulat ion a

bout JudgeC arne y ’ s fina

nc e s, pe rsona l re lationships, or future

pla ns is without a

ny support in the

re c ord a n d is so obviously m e ritle ss tha

t we de e m

it unne c e ssa

ry to a d dre ss it. 5AFFIRM E D
. 4

4 All R e q ue s ts for Judic ia l Notic e (Doc ke t num be rs 31, 50, 52) a

re DENIED a s unne c e ssa

ry to re solution of this a

ppe a l. 6