Gene Hazzard v. Mayor Libby Schaaf

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENE HAZZARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
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.
No. 23-15097
D.C. No. 4:22-cv-02921-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-15097
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 of 3 --

3 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 of 3 --