Aparna VASHISHT-ROTA, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Aparna Vashisht-Rota appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging employment claims under California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Vashisht-Rota's claims in this action as compulsory counterclaims was proper because the claims arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the claims being litigated in a pending Utah state court case, No. 170100325, Howell Mgmt. Servs. LLC v. August Educ. Grp., et al. See Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a); Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 827 F.2d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The question whether the [Plaintiff's] claims are compulsory counterclaims which should have been pleaded in the earlier ․ state court action is a question of state law.”); Yanaki v. Iomed Inc., 116 P.3d 962, 963-65 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (under Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a)(1), employee's discrimination claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been filed in employer's earlier-filed action, even if administrative remedies were not yet exhausted; the employment relationship was the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the employer's claims); see also Beck v. Fort James Corp. (In re Crown Vantage, Inc.), 421 F.3d 963, 973 n.7 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Federal courts will not permit an action to be maintained where the claims asserted should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier action.”).
We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Appellees’ motion to strike Vashisht-Rota's second supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 49) is granted. The Clerk will strike Docket Entry No. 42. All other pending motions and requests are denied.