facts showing that Defendants satisfy any of the tests under which a private citizen may be deemed a state actor, i.e., that they were exercising a traditionally and exclusively governmental function; that the State incurred any benefit from Defendants’ actions; that Defendants were not acting independently but under coercion of the State; or that they had

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-6079 DSF (PVC) Date: August 5, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Title: Robert J. Kulick v. Leisure Village Association, Inc., et al.

any official connection with the State such that Defendants’ actions may be fairly attributable to the State. The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] private homeowners’ association is not the equivalent of a municipality or a purported ‘quasi-government’ entity.” See Snowdon v. Preferred RV Resort Owners Ass’n, 379 Fed. App’x 636, 637 (9th Cir. 2010) (Nevada homeowners’ association is not a state actor; association did not perform the traditional and exclusive function of municipal governance; rather it provided “an assortment of basic amenities and simple services to its paying members, all within the fenced-in confines of its private property”); Hupp v. Solera Valley Greens Ass’n, 2015 WL 13447707, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015) (rejecting contention that homeowners’ association was a “quasi- government agency” and hence acted under color of law within the meaning of section 1983); Wong v. Village Green Owners’ Ass’n, 2014 WL 12587040, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2014) (the fact that state law governs the formation and operation of a homeowners’ association does not make the association a state actor); Yan Sui v. 2176 Pacific Homeowners Ass’n, 2012 WL 6632758, at *11-12 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2012), adopted, 2012 WL 4900427 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012), aff’d in part, remanded in part on other grounds, 582 Fed. App’x 733 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct 709 (2014) (homeowners’ association is not a state actor; distinguishing state cases referring to an association’s functions as “quasi-governmental,” none of which concerned issue of whether the association acted under color of law for purposes of section 1983). Therefore, Plaintiff here does not appear to state a cognizable civil rights claim against any of the named Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, why the complaint should not be dismissed because he has not stated a cognizable civil rights claim. Plaintiff may satisfy this Order by filing a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, explaining why this action is not barred.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-6079 DSF (PVC) Date: August 5, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Title: Robert J. Kulick v. Leisure Village Association, Inc., et al.

Instead of filing a response to the instant Order, Plaintiff may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner’s convenience. However, Plaintiff is advised that any dismissed claims may later be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff at his current address of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTESFORM

CIVIL-GEN InitialsofDeputyClerk mr