Case ID: f-appx_467/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Glenna Jo TRAMELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-17439.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2012.
    Glenna Jo Tramell, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    Monica Sue Hans, Downey Brand, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Glenna Jo Tramell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tramell’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it involved the same claims and parties as Tramell’s prior state court action that was decided on the merits. See Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating requirements for res judicata under California law).

To the extent that Tramell contends that the state court decision was erroneous, the district court properly determined that those contentions are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”).

Tramell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.