Case ID: f-appx_713/html/0646-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MIDLAND INNOVATIONS, NV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEN WANG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-17242
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 23, 2018
    Jerome Jay Blum, Herzlich & Blum LLP, Encino, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    
      Hongdi Ren, Pro Se
    Wen Wang, Pro Se
    Weiping Chen, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Midland Innovations, NV, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing its diversity action alleging state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal of an action as duplicative. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Midland’s action on the basis that the instant action is duplica-tive of an earlier-filed action, Midland Innovations, NV v. Weiland International Inc., et al., No. 4:07-mc-80257-CW. See id. at 689 (explaining that an action is duplica-tive if “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action, are the same” and setting forth criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the same).

Midland’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket Entry No. 9) and Chen’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket Entry No. 20) are granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.