Dirk Kancilia v. Lloyd Winburn

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIRK KANCILIA; et al., No. 15-17027
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00371-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LLOYD RAY WINBURN, an individual; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Dirk Kancilia, Jon Kancilia, and Kyrstin Kancilia (“the Kancilias”) appeal
pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging various
federal and state law claims regarding fraudulent financial dealings. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on
issue preclusion. Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.
2016). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Kancilias’ action as barred by the
doctrine of issue preclusion because the issue of when the Kancilias’ claims
accrued and whether they were entitled to tolling were actually litigated and
decided in the Kancilias’ prior Nevada state court action. See Taylor v. Sturgell,
553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation of an issue
of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential
to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the Kancilias’
response to defendants’ motion to dismiss because a “district court has
considerable latitude in . . . enforcing local rules that place parameters on briefing.”
Christian v. Mattel Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002); Hinton v. Pac.
Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review). Moreover, the
record reflects that the district court considered the Kancilias’ amended opposition.
We do not consider the Kancilias’ arguments regarding the denial of Kyrstin
2 15-17027
Kancilia’s motion requesting electronic filing because the issue was not properly
raised before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit the Kancilias’ contentions that the district court’s
order for defendants to answer in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure was in error, and that default should have been entered against
defendants.
Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs, set forth in their answering
brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-17027