Court Opinion

ID: 9909992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 18:00:59.53793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:24.788341
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             DEC 14 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELIKE DEWEY; ROBERT AMJARV,                     No.    22-55643

              Plaintiffs-Appellants,             D.C. No.
                                                 2:18-cv-09677-VBF-PLA
 v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; BRENDAN                     MEMORANDUM*
LOONEY, in his individual capacity;
MONIQUE REMBERT, in her individual
capacity; DOES, 1-10,

              Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                 Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 14, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Melike Dewey and Robert Amjarv (Plaintiffs) appeal pro se from the district

court’s judgment in their action against the City of Los Angeles (City) and two of

      *
        This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
its employees for federal and state law claims arising from the placement of a fire

hydrant and the condition of the City’s sewer lines near a property they own at

17737 Posetano Road in Los Angeles (the Property). We have jurisdiction,1 and

we affirm.

      Upon our de novo review2 of the record that was before the district court at

that time,3 we conclude that summary judgment was appropriate on Plaintiffs’ Fifth

Amendment4 and California Civil Code § 3479 public nuisance5 claims arising

from the purportedly-leaking sewer lines. The City presented uncontroverted

evidence that the sewer lines had not leaked onto the Property. Plaintiffs’

conclusory and speculative assertions otherwise were unsupported by any

competent evidence. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769,

1776, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007).

      1
         28 U.S.C. § 1291. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, interlocutory
certification was unnecessary. See id. § 1292(b).
      2
        See Henry v. Adventist Health Castle Med. Ctr., 970 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th
Cir. 2020) (summary judgment review).
      3
          See id. at 1128 n.1; Lippi v. City Bank, 955 F.2d 599, 604 (9th Cir. 1992).
      4
       See U.S. Const. amend. V; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Cedar Point Nursery v.
Hassid, 594 U.S. __, __, 141 S. Ct. 2063, 2071, 210 L. Ed. 2d 369 (2021).
      5
        See Citizens for Odor Nuisance Abatement v. City of San Diego, 213 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 538, 545–46 (Ct. App. 2017).
                                            2
      Likewise, upon our de novo review,6 we conclude that the district court

correctly dismissed the claims premised upon the location of the fire hydrant. The

district court properly determined that those claims were barred by claim

preclusion arising from a 2007 judgment in a California state court action. See

Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001).7

      We reject Plaintiffs’ assorted challenges to the district court proceedings.

Those challenges are largely premised upon Plaintiffs’ misreading of the United

States Code,8 the Federal and Local Rules,9 and the record. Moreover, nothing in

the record indicates that Magistrate Judge Abrams harbored any impermissible bias

against Plaintiffs. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56, 114 S. Ct.

1147, 1157–58, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994); United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864,

868 (9th Cir. 1980).

      6
       See V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. Meenakshi Overseas, LLC, 946 F.3d
542, 545 (9th Cir. 2019).
      7
       We decline to consider the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’
remaining claims because Plaintiffs have failed to meaningfully challenge it. See
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994).
      8
      See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1118–19 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (Federal Magistrates Act).
      9
          See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)–(b)(1) & 26(a)(1); C.D. Cal. R. 5-4.4 & 5-4.7.3.
                                           3
      We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          4