Cindy Hung v. Tribal Technologies , 682 F. App'x 602 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CINDY HUNG, deceased; LI CHING No. 14-17432
CHU, individually and as successor in
interest to Cindy K. Hung; ROBERT D.C. No. 3:11-cv-04990-WHA
CHING LIANG HUNG, individually and
as successors to Cindy Hung, deceased,
MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES;
GLENBOROUGH 400 ECR, LLC, a
California limited liability company,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s judgement entered under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in favor of Defendant Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC.
We review the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claims against
Glenborough are barred by the doctrine of res judicata de novo, see Bravo v. City
of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011), and now affirm.
“[I]n this diversity case where only substantive state law is at issue we apply
the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] would
apply.” Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 884 (9th Cir.
2007). Because the first judgment in favor of Glenborough was issued by a
California court, we apply California preclusion law. That law requires three
elements to be met for preclusion to apply:
(1) A claim or issue raised in the present action is
identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior
proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final
judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom
the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity
with a party to the prior proceeding.
People v. Barragan, 83 P.3d 480, 492 (Cal. 2004) (citation omitted).
All three elements are satisfied here. First, the claims Plaintiffs raised
against Glenborough in the prior California action are identical to the claims they
brought in this case. Second, the California Superior Court entered a final
2
judgment on the merits against Plaintiffs, and that judgment was affirmed by the
California Court of Appeal. Third, the same Plaintiffs brought both actions.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Plaintiffs’ motion to take judicial notice of certain documents is denied.
3