T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ). A cc o rd in g ly, W h it e’s r e que s tf oror a l a r gum e nti s de ni e d.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ZE DD RI CK F. W HI TE , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. D ELO I TTE & TO U CH E, LLP; BRA CH FELD & A SSO CI A TES, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 56274 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 3 4 7 9 - CA SP JW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C hr i s t i naA . S ny de r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Z e ddr i c k F . W hi t e appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt di s m i s s i ng hi s a c t i on a l l e gi ng, i nt e ra l i a , vi ol a t i ons of the F a i rC r e di tR e port i ng



# FI LED MA R 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56328 2 A c t. W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . Intri -P lex T e c hs . , I nc . v . Cr es t

G r p. , I nc ., 4 9 9 F .3 d1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e a f f irm in pa rt , va c a t e i n pa rt , a nd r e m a nd. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed W hi t e’ s thi rd cl ai m for f ai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef coul d b e grant ed because W hi t e f ai l ed t o p re se ntany l egal b a s is f o rh is c la im . See F ed. R . C i v. P . 12 (b)( 6). A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n g rant i ng D el oi tt e & T o u c h e ’s r e q u e s t f

o rju d ic ia l n o tic e , se e L ee v. C i t y of L os A ng eles , 250 F . 3d 668, 68 9 (9th C i r. 20 01 ), di sm i ss alof W hi t e’ s f i rs tand sec on d cl ai m s on the basi s of r es j ud i ca t a w as i m prop erbecause the al l egat i on s c on t ai ned i n these cl ai m s arose af t er W h ite ’s la s t ju d g m e n t o n th e m e r its in s ta te c o u rt, see Sa n D i eg o P o l i ce O f f i cers’ A ss ’n v. Sa n D i ego C i t

y E m ps. ’ R et. Sys . , 568 F . 3d 725, 734 ( 9th C i r . 2009) (ap p lyin g C alifo rn ia claim p re clu sio n law to d eter m in e aC alifo rn ia ju d g m en t’ s effect on a su b seq u en tfed eral case an dl i st i n g C al i fo rn i a p recl u si o n req u i rem en t s, i n cl u d i n g th atb o th l aw su i t s i n v o l v e th e sam e cau se o f act i o n an dth atth ere w as a f in a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e r its in th e f ir s t la w s u it) ; c

f. Mul lerv. T

an ner , 82 C al . Rptr. 73 4, 73 6 n . 4 & 73 8 (C t . A pp . 19 69 ) ( no t i ng thati ti s quest i on abl e w hether a di s m i s s a l f

ol l ow i ng ave xa t i ous l i t i ga nt ’ s f a i l ur e t o pos ts e c ur i tyi s aj udgm e nton th e m eri t s). A cco rd i n g l y, w e v acat e th e j u d g m en ti n p art , an drem an das t o th ese10- 56328 3 cl ai m s f or the di stri ctcourtt o d et erm i ne i n the fi rs ti nst ance w hether W hi t e s t at es c l a i m s f orw hi c h r e l i e f

m a ybe gr a nt e d. W h ite ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . T h e p a rtie s s h a ll b e a rth e iro w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. A F F I R M E D in p a r t , V A C A T E D in p a r t , a n d R E M A N D E D .