Patricia Uribe v. Sherman Way Gardens, Ltd. ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA JO URIBE, No. 09-55515
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-04124-VBF-
FFM
v.
SHERMAN WAY GARDENS, LTD., a MEMORANDUM *
California Limited Parthership, DBA
Olive Tree Apartments; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Jo Uribe appeals from the district court’s summary judgment and
order dismissing in her action under the Fair Housing Act and state law. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Dakar, 611 F.3d 590, 595 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under California’s anti-SLAPP
statute); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and grant of summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
barred Uribe’s claims because her action constituted a de facto appeal of a state
court decision and raised claims that were inextricably intertwined with that
decision. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008)
(a federal action is barred if adjudication of the federal claims would undermine
the state court ruling).
The district court properly struck the state law claims against defendant
Mordoh because Uribe failed to demonstrate a probability of success in light of
California’s litigation privilege. See Mindys Cosmetics, 611 F.3d at 595
(explaining the burden-shifting analysis under California’s anti-SLAPP statute);
Rubin v. Green, 847 P.2d 1044, 1047 (Cal. 1993) (communications in connection
with matters related to a lawsuit are privileged under Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b)). We
do not consider Uribe’s contentions regarding her federal claims against defendant
Mordoh because she failed to include these claims in her amended complaint. See
London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) (a plaintiff
2 09-55515
waives all claims dismissed with leave to amend by failing to re-allege them in the
amended complaint).
Uribe’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-55515