Ripdaman Narula v. Orange County Superior Court

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIPDAMAN NARULA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; CITY OF
LAGUNA NIGUEL; CITY OF SANTA
ANA; ARBITRATION FORUMS;
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL;
DOES, 1 thru 20 inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55974
D.C. No.
8:19-cv-00133-DSF-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 5 --

Ripdaman Narula appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
41(b). He also appeals the denials of his motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal and his motion for default judgment. We review de novo a dismissal
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),1 and we review dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b), denial
of leave to amend, denial of a motion for reconsideration, and denial of a motion
for default judgment for abuse of discretion.2 We affirm.
The district court did not err when it ordered dismissal of Narula’s § 1983
claims as to the Orange County Superior Court, the California Highway Patrol
(CHP), and Arbitration Forums, Inc. (AFI) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). His claims
against the Orange County Superior Court were barred by the Rooker-Feldman3
1 Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Tr., 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir.
2000).
2 United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d
1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend); United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum
Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (motion for reconsideration);
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (default judgments); Von
Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Comm’n, 442 F.2d 1047, 1051 (9th
Cir. 1971) (Rule 41(b) dismissal).
3 See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010); see also
Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L. Ed. 362
(1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1315,
75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983).
2

-- 2 of 5 --

doctrine and the Eleventh Amendment.4 His claims against the CHP were barred
by the Eleventh Amendment. See Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Fla.
Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 149–50, 101 S. Ct. 1032, 1034, 67 L. Ed. 2d
132 (1981) (per curiam). His claims against AFI were barred by arbitral immunity5
and because AFI is a private company that was not acting under color of state law
for purposes of a § 1983 claim.6 Dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of
discretion because any amendment of these claims would have been futile. See
Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014); cf.
Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803, 815 (9th Cir. 2020).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered dismissal of
Narula’s § 1983 action against the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, the City
of Laguna Niguel, and the City of Santa Ana pursuant to Rule 41(b). After the
district court’s dismissal of those claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Narula
repeatedly refused to obey the order directing him to either file an amended
complaint, voluntarily dismiss his action without prejudice, or inform the court of
4 See Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th
Cir. 2003); U.S. Const. amend. XI.
5 See Sacks v. Dietrich, 663 F.3d 1065, 1069–70 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. United
States v. City of Hayward, 36 F.3d 832, 838 (9th Cir. 1994); Wasyl, Inc. v. First
Boston Corp., 813 F.2d 1579, 1581–82 (9th Cir. 1987).
6 Marsh v. County of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012).
3

-- 3 of 5 --

his intent to stand on the initial complaint. Over the course of a year, the district
court granted Narula multiple extensions of time to comply with the order, each
time informing him of the possibility of dismissal if he refused. Finally, the
district court dismissed the action, citing the public’s interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice
to the defendants, and the inadequacy of less drastic sanctions. See Allen ex rel.
Allen v. Bayer Corp. (In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig.), 460
F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). Even considering Narula’s pro se status, the
dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. See Fendler v. Westgate-Cal. Corp., 527
F.2d 1168, 1169–70 (9th Cir. 1975) (per curiam); cf. Applied Underwriters, Inc. v.
Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891–92 (9th Cir. 2019); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).
Denial of the motion for reconsideration was proper. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing Narula’s § 1983 action pursuant to Rule
41(b), and Narula did not present the district court with new evidence or argue that
there was an intervening change in controlling law. See United Nat’l Ins., 555 F.3d
at 780.
The district court’s denial of Narula’s motion for default judgment against
AFI was also proper. The Eitel factors weighed in favor of denial, and Narula does
4

-- 4 of 5 --

not argue otherwise. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72; see also Padgett v. Wright,
587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --