N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM A. GR

AVEN, na

m e d a s W ill Grav e n, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. DANIEL V. ESPOSITO; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17442 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01228-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. W illia m A. Grave n a

p p e a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his dive

rsity a c tion a lle ging tha

t de fe nda nts e nga ge d in fra

ud in the ne gotia tion a nd dra fting of a

se ttle m e n t a gre e m e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28



# FIL ED FEB 2 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w for an a buse of disc re tion thedistric t c ourt’ s de c ision to e nforc e a forum se le c tion c la

use unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(3), Murphy v . Sc hne ide r N

at’l, Inc . , 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th C ir. 2004), a nd de novo its dismissa l on the ba sis of re s judic ata , Ste w a rt v . U.S. Banc o rp , 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th C i r. 2002). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in e nforc ing the forum se le c tion c l a

use a s to the c la im s a ga inst theB a um s, whic h re q

uire d any a c tion involving the

inte rpre tation or e nforc e m e nt of the se ttle m e n t a gre e m e nt to be brought in the

San B e rnardino C ounty , C a lifornia Supe rior C ourt, be c a

use the c ourt c orre c tly

c onc lude d tha

t the c la use wa s e nforc e a

ble , a nd the e nforc e m e nt of the forum se l e c tion c la

use wa s re a sona

ble . Se e Murphy , 362 F.3d a t 1140 (“ [F] orum

se le c t ion c la

use s a re pre sum ptive ly va lid” unle ss the pa

rty c ha lle nging the c la u se “ ‘ c le arly

show[s] tha

t e nforc e m e nt would beunre a sona ble an d unjust, or that the c la use wa s inva lid for suc h re a sons a s fra ud or ove r-re a c h ing.’ ” (c ita tion om i tte d)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Grave n’ s c la im s a g a i nst the Espositos a s ba rre d by the doc trine of re s judic ata be c a use Grave n ra ise d

or c ould ha

ve ra ise d the s e c la im s in his prior Ariz o na sta te c ourt a c tion tha

t wa s brought a ga inst the Espositos a

nd re sulte d in a

dism issa l with pre

judic e . Se e C

o nstantini v. Trans 2 1 2 - 1 7 4 4 2W

orld Airline

s , 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th C ir. 1982) (“ [A] fe de ra l c ourt sitting in dive rsity m ust a pply the re s judic ata

la w of the sta

te in whic h it sits.” ); Tumac ac ori Mission Land Dev ., Ltd. v . Union Pac . R.R. C o . , 297 P.3d 923, 925 (Ariz . C t. App. 2013) (disc ussing thee le m e nts of c la i m pre c lusion under Ariz ona la w). W e re je c t Grave n’ s c o nte ntions re ga rding judic ia l bia s. AFFIRM E D .

3 1 2 - 1 7 4 4 2