Zeddrick White v. Deloitte & Touche, 553 F. App'x 754

Plaintiff Zeddrick Fitzgerald White, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s dismissal of his action that included Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and related state-law claims.
The district court dismissed White’s claims against Deloitte & Touche, LLP and Brachfeld & Associates for failure to prosecute after White repeatedly failed to appear at required hearings.
The court dismissed White’s state-law claims against Gap, Inc. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding they did not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the lone federal FCRA claim.
Because the district court’s dismissal as to Brachfeld was affirmed, the appellate court declined to reach White’s challenge to the clerk’s failure to enter default against Brachfeld.
The appellate panel rejected White’s allegations of judicial bias and denied multiple motions (to strike, to expedite/hear, for injunction/stay, for oral argument, and motions for judicial notice) as unnecessary or unsupported.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was improper	White argued dismissal was inappropriate (challenging the sanctions)	Defendants argued dismissal was warranted because White repeatedly failed to appear	Affirmed dismissal for failure to prosecute; no abuse of discretion
Whether clerk’s failure to enter default against Brachfeld was reversible	White argued clerk should have entered default	Defendants argued issue moot after dismissal for failure to prosecute	Not considered on appeal because dismissal rendered interlocutory order unappealable
Whether district court had supplemental jurisdiction over Gap state-law claims	White argued state claims related to his federal FCRA claim	Gap argued state claims did not share a common nucleus of operative fact with FCRA claim	State-law claims dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction
Whether judicial bias or relief motions were warranted	White asserted judicial bias and sought various emergency reliefs	Court/defendants maintained assertions unsupported and motions unnecessary	Bias claims rejected; all listed motions denied as unnecessary or unsupported

Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381 (9th Cir. 1996) (governs dismissal for failure to prosecute and factors to consider)
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing dismissals for failure to prosecute)
Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction determinations)
Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004) (explains ‘‘common nucleus of operative fact’’ test for supplemental jurisdiction)
Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2011) (court’s duty to determine subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal will be disturbed only for clear error of judgment)