ROBERT KULICK V. LEISURE VILLAGE ASS'N, INC., No. 18-56000 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT J. KULICK, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-56000 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05718-PA-SS v. MEMORANDUM* LEISURE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Robert J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging civil rights violations and a state law claim arising from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d * 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). 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because Kulick’s action is a “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment, and he raises claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (Rooker–Feldman bars de facto appeals of a state court decision and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision). To the extent Kulick attempted to plead a state law defamation claim against Leisure Valley Association, Inc., the district court properly dismissed Kulick’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Kulick failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). AFFIRMED. 2 18-56000

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.