Fan v. City of Newport Beach

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YAXIAN FAN, No. 24-3866 D.C. No. 8:22-cv-02178-FWS-DFM Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, in the City of Santa Ana; KEITH E. RODENHUIS, KER is the owner of KER Legal Group, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fred W. Slaughter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Yaxian Fan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from state court * 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). litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); B&G Foods N.A., Inc. v. Embry, 29 F.4th 527, 534 (9th Cir. 2022) (dismissal based on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Fan’s claims against Newport Beach because Fan failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she suffered a constitutional violation as a result of an official policy or custom. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). The district court properly dismissed Fan’s claims against Keith Rodenhuis because the alleged conduct was protected petitioning activity and Fan failed to establish that the sham exception applied. See B&G Foods, 29 F.4th at 535 (describing the analysis to determine whether a defendant’s conduct is immunized under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, including whether the sham exception applies). 2 24-3866 All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 24-3866