Rick Eaton v. Mark Siemens , 571 F. App'x 620 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICK EATON, No. 12-16366
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00315-MCE-
CKD
v.
MARK J SIEMENS; CARLOS A. MEMORANDUM*
URRUTIA; CITY OF ROCKLIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 11, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior
District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff-Appellant Rick Eaton appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
complaint on claim preclusion grounds. Pursuant to a memorandum of
understanding between the City of Rocklin and the Rocklin Police Officers’
Association, Eaton arbitrated his termination from the Rocklin Police Department.
The arbitrator found good cause for Eaton’s termination, and the city manager
accepted the decision without modification. Eaton did not pursue any review in
state court and instead filed an action in district court, alleging that he was
terminated in violation of his constitutional rights as well as several state statutes.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint as barred by res judicata.
The Supreme Court held in United States v. Utah Construction & Mining
Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966), that administrative proceedings may be given
preclusive effect if they have sufficient judicial character. The Supreme Court in
University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 796–99 (1986), then held that
courts may give preclusive effect to unreviewed state administrative proceedings.
This court has held in White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 928–29 (9th Cir.
2012), that an arbitration proceeding like the one in this case has sufficient judicial
character.
California’s claim preclusion doctrine provides that “[a] valid final judgment
on the merits in favor of a defendant serves as a complete bar to further litigation
2
on the same cause of action.” Slater v. Blackwood, 15 Cal. 3d 791, 795 (1975). To
determine what constitutes the same cause of action, California applies the primary
rights theory, “under which the invasion of one primary right gives rise to a single
cause of action.” Id. The primary right at stake in both the arbitration proceeding
and the district court action was Eaton’s right to continued employment with the
Rocklin Police Department. See Miller v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030, 1034
(9th Cir. 1994); Takahashi v. Bd. of Trs., 783 F.2d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1986).
Applying California’s claim preclusion principles, the arbitration proceeding
precludes Eaton’s district court action.
AFFIRMED.
3