GENE HAZZARD V. LIBBY SCHAAF, ET AL, No. 23-15097 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GENE HAZZARD, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-15097 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:22-cv-02921-JSW v. MEMORANDUM* MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF; CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; MIALISA BONTA, former CEO of Oakland Promise; DAVID SILVER, Educational Director in Mayor Schaaf's Office; BARBARA PARKER, City Attorney; COURTNEY RUBY, City Auditor; ED REISKIN, City Administrator; ANDY FREMDER, co-founder of East Bay College Fund; ROB BONTA, former 18th Assembly District Representative; SABRINA LANDRETH, former City Administrator, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2023** * 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). Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Gene Hazzard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision on whether to permit oral argument. Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on Hazzard’s requests for judicial notice and defendants’ motion to dismiss without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (stating that “the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs[] without oral hearings”); N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-1(b) (stating that “a motion may be determined without oral argument”); Morrow v. Topping, 437 F.2d 1155, 1156 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that district courts may rule on motions without oral argument). Although Hazzard cites Federal Rule of Evidence 201(e), he provides no law to support his contention that this rule requires oral argument. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Hazzard’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state-law] claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 2 23-15097 jurisdiction . . . .”); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review). We reject as unsupported by the record Hazzard’s contentions that the district court failed to consider the record or failed to address the relevant allegations raised in the operative complaint. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 23-15097
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
