Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0990-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert G. GALLAGHER, aka Bobby Freeman; Betty Franklin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and John Falconi, Plaintiff, v. Richard S. LONG; Cynthia A. Long; Trustees for the Richard S. and Cynthia A. Long Trust; LGF Enterprises, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-16418.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2009.
    Filed Dec. 17, 2009.
    
      John S. Bartlett, Law Office of John S. Bartlett, Carson City, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kurt Alan Franke, Esquire, Law Offices of Kurt A. Franke, Reno, NY, Sally O’Hara Landback, Zangari & Hershman, New Haven, CT, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Robert Gallagher and Betty Franklin appeal the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of their diversity action against Richard and Cynthia Long, the Long trust, and a related company. The complaint alleged that the Longs had breached a settlement agreement intended to resolve a longstanding dispute over the parties’ interest in a collection of celebrity memorabilia.

The underlying dispute was litigated in the courts of Delaware and resulted in a final judgment in favor of the Longs. This action was instituted while the Delaware litigation was still pending. There is no reason why the claims sought to be litigated here could not have been raised in the Delaware litigation, and for that reason the district court correctly dismissed the action as barred by res judicata. As our court has stated, res judicata means that “a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 93, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980)). The same principle has been recognized by the courts of Delaware. La-Point v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 970 A.2d 185, 191-92 (Del.2009).

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