Eric Drake v. the Niello Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC DRAKE, No. 18-15763
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01036-JAM-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE NIELLO COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Eric Drake appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action arising from the purchase of a used automobile. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Daewoo Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Opta Corp.,
875 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2017) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) dismissal);
*
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). Drake’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir.
2005) (claim preclusion). We affirm.
The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on the basis of
claim preclusion because Drake’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in
the prior federal action, which involved the same parties or their privies and
resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v.
Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of
claim preclusion); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047,
1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that a stipulated dismissal of an action with prejudice
generally constitutes a final judgment on the merits for purposes of claim
preclusion).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental
jurisdiction over the one state law claim it found was not barred by claim
preclusion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir.
2001) (the district court in its discretion may “decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Drake’s contentions that Magistrate Judge Brennan and District Judge
Mendez were biased, and that the case was improperly assigned, are unpersuasive.
See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) (“A judge is not
2
disqualified by a litigant’s suit or threatened suit against him . . . .”).
Appellees’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 30) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3