UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEYMAN ROSHAN, No. 24-659 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 4:23-cv-05819- JST v. DOUGLAS R. MCCAULEY, OPINION Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2025 San Francisco, California

Filed March 11, 2025 Before: John B. Owens, Lawrence VanDyke, and Anthony D. Johnstone, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Owens 2 ROSHAN V. MCCAULEY

SUMMARY *

Younger abstention

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Peyman Roshan’s federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the California Department of Real Estate (“DRE”) disciplinary proceeding against him. After the California Supreme Court suspended Roshan’s law license for misconduct, the DRE initiated a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against Roshan’s real estate license. Roshan sued the DRE in federal court for alleged constitutional violations. Citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the district dismissed the lawsuit and held that it must abstain from hearing the matter in favor of the pending state DRE disciplinary proceeding. The panel held that the district court correctly dismissed Roshan’s case under the Younger abstention doctrine. Applying the Younger requirements, the panel noted that Roshan did not contest that the state proceedings were ongoing and implicated important state interests. This court’s precedents foreclosed his argument that the state proceedings were inadequate because he could raise his federal claims in judicial review of the DRE action. Finally, the DRE proceeding was quasi-criminal given that (1) DRE initiated the action after conducting an investigation, (2) DRE filed an “accusation” against Rohan that was akin to a complaint; and (3) the proceeding’s purpose was to determine whether Roshan should be sanctioned—via the * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ROSHAN V. MCCAULEY 3

suspension or revocation of his real estate license. Because the Younger requirements were satisfied and Roshan has not made a showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate, the district court properly abstained.

COUNSEL Cyrus M. Sanai (argued), SANAIS, Beverly Hills, California; Peyman Roshan, Pro Se, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jack C. Nick (argued), Deputy Attorney General, Business Litigation; Michael D. Gowe, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Tamar Pachter, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta, California Attorney General; California Attorney General’s Office, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. 4 ROSHAN V. MCCAULEY

OPINION OWENS, Circuit Judge:

Peyman Roshan, a lawyer and real estate broker, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his federal lawsuit to enjoin the California Department of Real Estate (“DRE”) disciplinary proceeding against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. I. BACKGROUND After extensive California State Bar litigation, the California Supreme Court in 2021 suspended Roshan’s law license for misconduct. Shortly thereafter, the DRE—an administrative agency charged with the “protection” of “buyers of real property and those persons dealing with real estate licensees”—initiated a reciproc