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


Menu:
  •                                                                           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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 27 2010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