Craig Ross v. Csu Board of Trustees

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 29, 2018·No. 17-56564·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG ROSS; NATALIE OPERSTEIN, No. 17-56564

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03778-ODW-JC

v. MEMORANDUM* THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court’s

order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health

Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v.

* 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). Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion

to reopen because the instant action is duplicative of an earlier-filed action, Ross, et

al. v. White, et. al., No. 2:17-cv-04149-ODW-JC. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (in

determining whether a later-filed action is duplicative, this court examines

“whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to

the action, are the same”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion

for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such relief.

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63

(9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)); see also C.D. Cal. R. 7-18 (grounds for reconsideration

under local rules); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard

of review for compliance with local rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motions

to disqualify Judge Wright and Judge Ogluin. See United States v. Johnson, 610

F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and standard for recusal).

The district court did not err in denying appellants’ request to issue a

2 17-56564 summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (requiring that a complaint be filed before a

plaintiff may request a summons).

Appellants’ requests to disqualify Judge Wright, set forth in their reply

briefs, are denied.

Appellants’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

3 17-56564

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG ROSS; NATALIE OPERSTEIN, No. 17-56564

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03778-ODW-JC

v. MEMORANDUM* THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court’s

order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health

Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v.

* 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). Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion

to reopen because the instant action is duplicative of an earlier-filed action, Ross, et

al. v. White, et. al., No. 2:17-cv-04149-ODW-JC. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (in

determining whether a later-filed action is duplicative, this court examines

“whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to

the action, are the same”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion

for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such relief.

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63

(9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)); see also C.D. Cal. R. 7-18 (grounds for reconsideration

under local rules); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard

of review for compliance with local rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motions

to disqualify Judge Wright and Judge Ogluin. See United States v. Johnson, 610

F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and standard for recusal).

The district court did not err in denying appellants’ request to issue a

2 17-56564 summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (requiring that a complaint be filed before a

plaintiff may request a summons).

Appellants’ requests to disqualify Judge Wright, set forth in their reply

briefs, are denied.

Appellants’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

3 17-56564

Craig Ross v. Csu Board of Trustees, (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Craig Ross v. Csu Board of Trustees (Craig Ross v. Csu Board of Trustees) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. Sturgell

553 U.S. 880 (Supreme Court, 2008)

United States v. Johnson

610 F.3d 1138 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)