Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Irvin REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAISER PERMANENTE, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Irvin Reyes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his former employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a judgment on the pleadings on the basis of claim preclusion. Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on the basis of claim preclusion because Reyes raised, or could have raised, his claims in his prior California state court action, which involved the same primary rights and parties, or their privies, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) (to determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, federal courts must look to the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered); San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under California law and explaining that California’s doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a primary rights theory); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342, 345 (2010) (for claim preclusion purposes, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Reyes’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Reyes’s motions to transmit physical evidence (Docket Entry Nos. 10 & 11) are denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-17369
Decided: October 21, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)