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 LAR K FR ATUS; KAR

LA FR ATUS, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. C OUNTY OF C ONTR

AC OSTA; C ATHERINE KUTSURIS; JASON C R APO, B uilding Offic ia l; M IC HAEL SILVA; GANO THOM AS, B uilding Offic ia l; R OB ER T ERIC KSON, B uilding Inspe c tor; AR

UNA B H AT, De puty Dire c tor; KEITH DENISON,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-16985 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-05533-M EJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M aria -Ele na

Ja m e s, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 7, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ELLIS, ** Distric t Judge .



# FIL ED JUN 22 2018 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 Sara Le e Ellis, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.This a ppe a l involve s a

le ngthy history of a dm inistra

tive and le ga l ba

ttle s ste m m ing from

C o ntra C osta C ounty ’ s e nforc e m e nt of its z oning a nd building c ode to c onc l ude tha

t the se c ond living units on the prope rtie s of C la

rk a nd Ka rla Fra tus (“ Pla intiffs” ) we re unla wful. Pla i ntiffs we re e ve ntua lly suc c e ssful in sta te c ourt in ove rturning thea d m inistra tive de c ision tha

t found the ir prope rtie s unla wful, a nd the y the n file d a n a c tion in fe de ra l c o urt c la im ing viola tion of fe de ra l and sta te la ws in c onne c tion with the origina l a d

m inistra t ive rulings. This c ourt a ffirm e d the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of tha t a c tion a t sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e Fratus v . C

ontra C osta C ty . Bd. of Supe rv isors , 599 F. App’ x 707 (9th C ir. 2015) (F ratus I ). Thre e da y s be fore the distric t c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt in thefirst fe d e ra l a c tion, theC ounty

de nie d the Pla intiffs’ a

pplic ation for pe rm its for the ir se c ond units. ThePla i ntiffs subse que ntly brought a

se c ond a c tion, a l le ging fe de ra l la w c la im s of First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia tion a nd viola tions of substa

ntive due proc e ss and e qua l prote c tion a s we ll a s se ve ra l sta te la w c la im s. Pla intiffs now a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of tha t a c tion a t sum m ary judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt gran te d the C ounty

sum m a ry judgm e nt with re spe c t to the substa ntive due proc e ss and e qua l prote c tion c la i m s on theground tha t the y we re ba rre d by re s judic ata , be c a use the Pla intiffs c ould ha ve brought this ac tion be fore the judgm e nt wa s

2e nte re d in thefirst c a s e . The distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt to the C ounty with re spe c t to there t a lia tion c la i m for la c k of e v ide nc e . Afte r granting sum m ary judgm e nt on a ll of thefe de ra l la w c la im s, the distric t c ourt de c line d to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the sta te la w c la im s. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s de c ision to gra nt sum m ary judgm e nt. C lark v . Be ar Ste arns &C

o. , 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th C i r. 1992). W e a lso re vie w de novo m atte rs of re s judic at a . Id. Finding no error, we a ffirm . Pla intiffs a

rgue re s judic ata

doe s not a

pply be c a use this c om

pla i nt is ba se d on diffe re nt e ve nts, inc luding thede nia l of a pe rm it a nd a loa n a s we ll a s the fa ilure to re ve rse pe na ltie s on a

de linque nt ta

x bill. The

C ounty ’ s a c tions, howe ve r, we re ba se d upon thesa

m e inte rpre tation of there le va nt c o de provisions a

nd a p plie d to the s am e prope rtie s. The n u c le us of fa c t s is thesa

m e ; the re fore , the Pla i ntiffs’ c la im s ba se d on thosefa c ts a re ba rre d by re s judic ata . Se e ProShipLine Inc . v . Aspe n Infrastruc ture

s Ltd. , 609 F.3d 960, 968 (9th C ir. 2010) (noting tha t , am ong the fa c tors we e xam ine in de te rm ining whe the r the re is a n “ ide ntity

of c la im s” for re s judic ata

to a pply , “ [r] e l i anc e on the tra nsa c tiona l nuc l e us e l e m e nt is e spe c ia lly a ppropria te be c a use the e le m e nt is outc om e de te rm inative ” ) (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d).

3The Pla i ntiffs furthe r c onte nd tha t the ir c ha lle nge s to theC ounty ’ s c onduc t c ould not ha

ve be e n brought in the

first a c tion be c a

use it c am e late r tha

n the c onduc t in thefirst a c tion. There l e va nt sta nda rd is whe the r the c l a im s “ we re ra ise d or c ould ha

v e be e n ra ise d in theprior a c tion.” O w e n s v . K aise r Found. He alth Plan, Inc . , 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th C ir. 2001) (quoting W . Radio Se rv

s. C o. v . Glic k man , 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th C ir. 1997)). A re vie w of the re c ord shows that the y e ithe r we re or c ould ha

ve be e n ra ise d. The Pla intiffs ra ise d the i r fa ilure to-tra i n c la im

in Fratus I

. The Pla intiffs a lso dispute d in F ratus I the C ounty ’ s listing of the ir prope rtie s a s ha ving only one living spac e e a c h, whic h wa s the ba sis for the ba nk’ s loa n de nia l in this c a se . The Pla intiffs c ould ha ve ra ise d in Fratus I the C ounty ’ s fa ilure to re ve rse pe na ltie s, whic h oc c urre d a s e arly a s June 2012, se ve ra l m onths be fore judgm e nt wa s e nte re d in Fratus I . Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not e nte r judgm e nt in Fratus I until thre e da y s a fte r the c ha lle nge d pe rm it de nia l, a nd the c ourt a c tua lly

he ld a he aring in Fratus I two da y s a fte r the de nia l. The de nia l c o uld ha

v e be e n ra i se d a s we ll. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt c orre c tly rule d tha t the Pla intiffs’ fe de ra l la

w c la im s a re ba rre d by re s judic at a . The c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to e xe rc i se supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the sta te la wc l a im s.

4Pla intiffs unoppose d m otion for judic ia l notic e is G R ANT E D . The judgm e nt of the Distric t C ourt is AFFIRM E D .

5