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 AR OLYN R

YGG, a single wom an a

nd C R AIG DILW OR T H, a

single m an, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. DAVID F HULB ER T; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-35080 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00864-JLR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

6, 2015 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : WALLAC E , KLEINFELD, a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s. Appe lla nts C aroly

n R y g g a nd he r son, C ra ig Dilworth, enga ge d in e xte nsive sta te c o urt litiga

t ion with the ir ne xt-door ne ighbors, La rry and Ka are n R e ine rtse n, to re solve a

prope rty line dispute . The W a shington C o urt of Appe a ls a ffirm e d the 

# FIL E D MAY18 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

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).tria l c ourt’ s rulings in fa vor of the R e ine rtse n s. Se e Re i ne rtse n v . Ry gg , No. 64661-3-I, 161 W a sh. App. 1037 (2011), pe tition for re v i e w de nie d , 268 P.3d 224 (W a sh. 2011). Dissa tisfie d with there sult of thesta te c o urt proc e e dings, a

ppe lla nts file d a n a c tion in fe de ra l c ourt. The ir 200-pa ge am e nde d c o m pla int a sse rte d 50 c l a im s a ga inst 21 de fe nda

nts. The distric t c ourt dismi sse d a ll but two of the c la i m s in a de ta ile d orde r, and e nte re d judgm e nt a ga inst a ppe lla n ts on the re m a ining two c la im s following a

jury tria l. W e a ffirm

the judgm e nt a

nd the s e rulings in a se pa ra te m e m orandum

disposition file d sim

ulta ne ously with this one . Afte r the d i stric t c ourt issue d its dism i ssa l judgm e nt, a

ppe lla nts file d a se c o nd fe de ra l a c t ion. The ir c om pla int in the

se c ond fe de ra l a c t ion wa s la rge ly duplic ative of the i r am e nde d c om pla i nt in thefirst fe d e ra l a c tion. It na m e d m any of the sa m e de fe nda

nts, a s we ll a s la

w y e rs who ha d re pre se nte d those de fe nda nts in the first fe de ra l a c tion. Thedistric t c ourt sua sponte issue d a

n orde r sta y ing the c a se but pe rm itting the

de fe n da nts to fileone joint m otion to dism iss. The de fe nda n ts file d a m o tion. Afte r full brie fing by the pa rtie s , the distric t

c ourt gran te d the m otion a

nd dismisse d the a c tion. 1

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s, we re c ount only an a bbre v iate d ve rsion of the m he re . 2R

y gg a nd Dilworth a

ppe a l from

the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l of the a c tion, a s we ll a s its de nia l of the ir m otion for re c usa l of Judge R oba rt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng a

ppe lla nts’ m otion for re c usa l. The sta

te m e nts JudgeR o ba

rt m a de in his orde rs de ny ing c e rta in posttria l m o tions in the

first fe de ra l a c tion re fle c t opinions he form e d ba se d on his e xte nsive e xpe rie nc e with this litiga tion; the y do not de m onstra

te bia s ste m

m ing from an e xtra judic ia l sourc e , nor do the y de m onstra

te tha t Judge R oba

rt wa s inc a pa ble of fa ir judgm e n t. Se ePe sne ll v . Arse nault , 543 F.3d 1038, 1043–44 (9th C ir. 2008). 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d a

ppe lla n ts’ c o m pla int. 2 C ounts 1–3 and 14–18 we re duplic at ive of c la im s a lle ge d in the first fe de ra l a c tion; thedistric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the se c ounts for thesa m e re a sons it dism

isse d the ir c ounte rparts in thefirst fe d e ra l a c tion. Thedistric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C ount 13 for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im : a

ppe lla nts do not ha

ve a right to bere pre se n te d by an attorne y who ha s be e n suspe nde d from the pra c tic e of la w. The re m a ining c la im s we re sta te la wc la im s, a

nd the distric t c ourt wa s we ll within its disc re tion to

2 Prior to e n t e ring its orde r on the m o tion to dism iss, thedistric t c ourt gran te d a ppe lla nts’ m otion to withdra

w C ounts 5 a

nd 6 from the c om

pla i nt. 3de c line to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the m . Se e Bry ant v . Adv e ntist

He alth Sy s./W
. , 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th C ir. 2002). 3. As in thefirst fe d e ra l a c tion, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by de ny ing le a

ve to a m e n d the c om

pla int. Se eC

afasso v . Ge n. Dy namic

s C 4 Sy s., Inc . , 637 F.3d 1047, 1058–59 (9th C ir. 2011). AFFIRM E D.

4