Zeddrick White v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP , 472 F. App'x 508 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 19 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ZEDDRICK F. WHITE,                                No. 10-56274
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03479-CAS-
    PJW
    v.
    DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP;                           MEMORANDUM *
    BRACHFELD & ASSOCIATES,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 6, 2012 **
    Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    Zeddrick F. White appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his action alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
    *
    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). Accordingly, White’s
    request for oral argument is denied.
    Act. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Intri-Plex
    Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 
    499 F.3d 1048
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm in
    part, vacate in part, and remand.
    The district court properly dismissed White’s third claim for failure to state a
    claim upon which relief could be granted because White failed to present any legal
    basis for his claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
    Although the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Deloitte &
    Touche’s request for judicial notice, see Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 
    250 F.3d 668
    ,
    689 (9th Cir. 2001), dismissal of White’s first and second claims on the basis of res
    judicata was improper because the allegations contained in these claims arose after
    White’s last judgment on the merits in state court, see San Diego Police Officers’
    Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 
    568 F.3d 725
    , 734 (9th Cir. 2009)
    (applying California claim preclusion law to determine a California judgment’s
    effect on a subsequent federal case and listing California preclusion requirements,
    including that both lawsuits involve the same cause of action and that there was a
    final judgment on the merits in the first lawsuit); cf. Muller v. Tanner, 
    82 Cal. Rptr. 734
    , 736 n.4 & 738 (Ct. App. 1969) (noting that it is questionable whether a
    dismissal following a vexatious litigant’s failure to post security is a judgment on
    the merits). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment in part, and remand as to these
    2                                    10-56328
    claims for the district court to determine in the first instance whether White states
    claims for which relief may be granted.
    White’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
    AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
    3                                    10-56328
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-55005

Citation Numbers: 472 F. App'x 508

Judges: Fletcher, Reinhardt, Tashima

Filed Date: 3/19/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024