Cluster 767634 (2000)

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000), even though, as noted above, that doctrine can also be waived.

See H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610 , 612 (9th 18 Cir. 2000) (“Because we are not asked to review the merits of a final state judgment, but rather to enjoin ongoing state proceedings, we conclude that principles of abstention rather than Rooker-Feldman govern this case.”).

See H.C., 203 F.3d at 613 (“a state has a vital interest in protecting the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory.”). 10 discovery commences.”).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 21 Abstention analysis is conducted “in light of the facts and circumstances existing at the 22 time the federal action was filed.” Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v. County of Solano, 657 23 F.3d 876 , 890 n.6 (9th Cir. 2011). 24 All five elements to abstain under Younger are met here, therefore, the Court will 25 not hear this case. 26 1.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (similar). 3 “The third prong is satisfied unless state procedural law bars presentation of Plaintiff’s 4 federal claims.” Burns, 2021 WL 2156615 , at *3.

Gordon v. 26 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n v. 27 Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982)).

Koppel, 203 F.3d at 613 (citations omitted).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). 21 15 The San Remo Hotel v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1998). 22 16 See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 Koppel, 203 F.3d at 613 (cleaned up). 23 18 Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289 , 1294 (9th Cir. 1998), disapproved of on other grounds by Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 “stay[ the federal case] u…

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Middlesex Cnty.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (“When the case is one in which the Younger doctrine applies, the case must be dismissed.”).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissing case under Younger where parents sought “wholesale federal intervention into an ongoing state domestic dispute” Feldman doctrine precludes the claims in this case.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979)).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying Younger and holding that “family relations are a traditional area of state concern,” and that states have a particularly “vital interest in protecting the authority” of its orders and judgments in the field of domestic relations) (citation modified).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying Younger to a state-court custody dispute, noting that 19 the “state has a vital interest in protecting the authority of the judicial system,” particularly “in the field of domestic relations, over which federal court have no general jurisdiction”). 20 9 See Younger, 401 U.S. at 52–54. 21 10 Middlesex Cnty.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000)).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F. 3d 610, 613 (9" Cir. 2000)(““When the case is one in which the Younger doctrine applies, the case must be dismissed.”) This matter will be dismissed.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (2000).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying Younger and holding that “family relations are a traditional area of state concern,” and that states have a particularly “vital interest in protecting the authority” of its orders and judgments in the field of domestic relations (citation modified)).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000), this Court declines to do so on a preliminary record.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that Younger 19 abstention required dismissal of federal action because plaintiffs requested that federal 20 court “vacat[e] existing interlocutory [state court] orders” and issue “a federal injunction 21 directing the future course of the state litigation”).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 Third, while Plaintiff believes her access to the superior court has been unconstitutionally barred, 16 the case management order states: 17 Ms. Johnson may file any motions, pleadings or petitions that are well founded, based in fact, and made in good faith.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Thus, there is no final state judgment or order to which the Rooker–Feldman doctrine might relate and we need not reach the question of the doctrine’s applicability to this action.”).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).4 Accordingly, 3 Darwin points out that unlike in his first federal lawsuit, his second includes ADA and due process claims.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (considering Younger 2 abstention for the first time on appeal and noting that the issue “may be raised sua sponte 3 at any point”). 4 The Court agrees with the R&R that Defendants did not waive the issue of Younger 5 abstention because they did not expressly urge the Court to proceed to an adjudication of 6 the constitutional merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000); (see also R&R at 12); 2 || Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (“Here it is abundantly clear that 3 || appellees had an opportunity to present their federal claims in the state 4 || proceedings.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 18 2000); Washington v. L.A.

Gordon v. 16 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 The Younger criteria are satisfied here.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979)).

Gordon v. 24 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 The Younger criteria are satisfied here.

Gordon v. 27 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Because we are not asked to review the merits of a final state judgment, but rather to enjoin ongoing state proceedings, we conclude that principles of abstention rather than Rooker–Feldman, govern this case.”).

Gordon v. 20 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 21 The Younger criteria are satisfied here.

Gordon v. 19 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 20 The Younger criteria are satisfied here.

Gordon v. 27 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 28 The Younger criteria are satisfied here.

Gordon v. 19 Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 20 The Younger criteria are satisfied here.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 25 Abstention is proper regardless of whether the applicant seeks declaratory relief, injunctive 26 relief, or damages.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] state has a vital 18 interest in protecting the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are 19 not rendered nugatory.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Family relations are a traditional area of state concern.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] state 17 has a vital interest in protecting the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and 18 judgments are not rendered nugatory.

See H.C. ex rel. 8 Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610 , 612–13 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Because we are not asked to review 9 the merits of a final state judgment, but rather to enjoin ongoing state proceedings, we conclude 10 that principles of abstention rather than Rooker–Feldman, govern this case.”). 11 B.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000); see also San Remo Hotel v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095 , 1103 n.5 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing federal court power to raise Younger doctrine sua sponte).

See H.C. ex rel. 3 Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610 , 612–13 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Because we are not asked to review 4 the merits of a final state judgment, but rather to enjoin ongoing state proceedings, we conclude 5 that principles of abstention rather than Rooker–Feldman, govern this case.”).

Id. at 613.

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 “Absent ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ abstention in favor of state judicial proceedings is required 6 if the state proceedings (1) are ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the 7 plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims.” Hirsh v. Justs. of Sup. Ct. of State of 8 Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 1995). 9 Sanai’s attorney discipline proceeding is an ongoing state judicial p…

H.C. ex rel. 7 Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).

H.C. ex rel. 8 Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).

Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 4 2000). 5 Plaintiff’s Sacramento County criminal proceedings were ongoing when he filed his initial 6 complaint.