Cindy HUNG, deceased; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES; Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: March 11, 2020
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Lynda Hung, Counsel, Lynda Hung, Daly City, CA, for Plaintiffs - Appellants Gina Elizabeth Och, Esquire, Attorney, Edmund Gerard Farrell, III, Esquire, Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kasey C. Townsend, Esquire, Attorney, Murchison & Cumming, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Tribal Technologies Elizabeth Rhodes, Attorney, Clapp, Moroney, Vucinich, Beeman and Scheley, San Bruno, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in their diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment on the basis of res judicata. City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp., Inc., 353 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Tribal Technologies on the basis of res judicata because all elements of res judicata are met, specifically plaintiffs’ prior California state-court action was based on the same primary right, there was a final judgment on the merits, and the parties are in privity. See id. at 762 (elements of res judicata under California law).
To the extent plaintiffs challenge the district court’s judgment for defendant Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC, it was previously affirmed by this court in Hung v. Tribal Technologies, 682 Fed. App'x 602 (9th Cir. 2017) and cannot be reexamined. See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, Or., 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he law of the case doctrine ․ precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice resulting from the denial of the requested discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court’s “decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record plaintiffs’ contention that the district court was biased.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.