Zeddrick White v. Deloitte & Touche

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZEDDRICK FITZGERALD WHITE, No. 13-55549
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03479-CAS-
PJW
v.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, AND PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Zeddrick Fitzgerald White appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging, among other claims, violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78
*
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).
F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996), and de novo a district court’s subject matter
jurisdiction determination, Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir.
2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing White’s action
against Deloitte & Touche, LLP and Brachfeld & Associates for failure to
prosecute in light of White’s continued failure to appear at required hearings. See
Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1384-85 (discussing factors to guide the court’s decision
whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291
F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting dismissal will be disturbed only if there is “a
definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of
judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal as to Brachfeld for failure to
prosecute, we do not consider White’s challenge to the clerk not entering default
against Brachfeld. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (after dismissal for failure to
prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether the failure
to prosecute was purposeful).
The district court properly dismissed White’s state law claims against Gap,
Inc. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because those claims did not share a
common nucleus of fact with White’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, the only
2 13-55549
claim over which federal jurisdiction existed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
(establishing “same case or controversy” requirement for supplemental
jurisdiction); Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A state
law claim is part of the same case or controversy when it shares a ‘common
nucleus of operative fact’ with the federal claims and the state and federal claims
would normally be tried together.” (citation omitted)); see also Moore v. Maricopa
Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting court’s obligation
to determine sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction).
White’s contentions of judicial bias are without merit and not supported by
the record.
White’s motion to strike, filed on January 9, 2014, is denied as unnecessary.
White’s motion to expedite hearing schedule and for temporary injunction and
stay, filed on December 12, 2013, is denied as unnecessary. White’s motion
regarding oral argument, filed on August 30, 2013, is denied as unnecessary. All
pending motions for judicial notice are also denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-55549