T hi s di s pos i t i on i s nota ppr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nt h C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. 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
M ARY A BB OTT, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t,
v. CHRI S OKO YE, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 16237 D
. C. N o . 2 : 0 8
- c v - 0 0 4 4 5
- G EBDA D
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 E a s te r n D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia G a r l a nd E
. B ur r e l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i t t e d J a nua r y 15, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B efo re: N O O N A N , H A W K IN S an d M
. S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a r y A bbot t( “ A bbot t ” ) a ppe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a dve r s e s um m a r y j udgm e nt g ra nt , ar gu i ng t he di stri ctcourter re d i n fi nd i ng thatthe R ooke r - Fe ldm an d oc t r i ne b arred j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er h er cl aim s . Se e R ooke rv . F i de l i t y T r us t C o. , 263 U
. S
. 413 ( 1 9 2 3 ) ; D is tr i c t

of C ol um bi a C our t

of Appe al s v . Fe ldm an , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 6 2 ( 1 9 8 3 )
.



# FI LED JAN 26 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

“ T he R ooke r - Fe ldm an do ctrin e prov i des thatfe dera l di stri ctcourt s l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o exerci se appel l at e revi ew ov erfi nal st at e c ou rtj ud gm ent s. ” H e nr i c hs
v. V al l ey V i ew D ev . , 47 4 F. 3d 60 9, 61 3 ( 9th Ci r . 20 07 )
. A s the Suprem e C ou rthas expl ai ned, w e m ustconst rue R ooke r - Fe ldm an n a r r o w ly , E xx on Mobi l C or

p. v . Saudi B as i c I ndus
. C or

p. , 544 U
. S
. 280, 284 ( 2005) , a nd the doc tr i ne “ a ppl i e s onl y w he n t he f e d e r a l p la in tif

f b o th a s s e r ts a s h e rin

ju r y le g a l e r r o ro re r r o r s b y th e s ta te c o u r t and
se eks as her re m edy re l i ef fr om the st at e courtj ud gm ent , ” Kou ga si an v. T M SL , Inc. , 35 9 F
. 3d 11 36 , 11 40 (9t h C i r. 20 04 ). W ith th e e x c e p tio n o f

th e b r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t c l a i m , t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly f ound R ooke r - Fe ldm an ba r r e d A bbot t ’ s c l a i m s . I n he rot he rc l a i m s , A bbot ts ought

“ equi t abl e r el i ef

fr om the defa ul t j ud gm ent i n C al i forni a, ” r equest ed t he di stri ctcourt
o r d e r th e “d e f

a u lt ju d g m e n t b e s e t a s id e a n d h e ld a n u llity ,” u r g e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to fi nd t he C al i forni a j ud gm ent “ vo i d a nd / or vo i dabl e, nu l l and .
. . se tas i de, ” a nd ar gu ed O k o y e w a s u n

ju s tly e n r ic h e d b e c a u s e o f th e s ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n t. T ho ug h w e r ec og n iz e the narrow ness of t he R ooke r - Fe ldm an doc tr i ne , a l l of t hese cl ai m s f

al l square l y w i thi n t he Ro o ke r - Fe ldm a n p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t d e f a c to appeal s. T he re qu es tfor r el i ef i s unam bi gu ou s, es se nt i al l y “in v it i ng di stri ctcourt
r e v ie w a n d r e

je c tio n ” o f

a s ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n t. E xx on Mobi l

C or p. , 544 U
. S
. a t284;3

see a l so H e nr i c hs , 474 F
. 3d a t 614- 16 ( “ A r e que s t t o de c l a r e the s t a t e c our tj udgm e nt
vo i d see ks re dres s fr om an i nj ury ca used by the st at e c ou rti t se l f. ” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed))
. A b b o t t ’ s b reach o f co n tract cl ai m w o u l d al so b e b arred b y R ooke r - Fe ldm an if

“ i ne xt r i c a bl y i nt e r tw i ne d” w i th t he s t a t e c our tde c i s i on . N o e l v . H a ll , 341 F
. 3d 1148, 1158 ( 9t h C i r . 2003)
. W e c onc l ude i t i s not . T he c ont r a c t , the s e t t l e m e ntr e a c he d on t he r e m a i ni ng vi a bl e N e va da c l a i m , w a s a l l e ge dl y br e a c he d w he n O koy e f i l e d s ui ton t ha t s a m e c l a i m i n C a l i f or ni a . S i m pl y be c a us e the m e a s ur e of da m a ge s A bbot ts e e ks b y h e rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t c la im e q u a ls w h a t O k o y e r e c o v e r e d u n d e rth e C a lif o r n ia ju d g m e n t d o e s n o t m a k e th e b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t c la im “in e x tr ic a b ly in te r tw in e d ” w ith th e s ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n t. Se e Kougas i an , 359 F
. 3d a t1140. In ot her w ords, “[a ]tfi rs tgl ance , a f eder al sui tal l egi ng a c ause of ac t i on for” b r e a c h in g a s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t b y f ilin g “ a s ta te c o u r t [ a c tio n ] m ig h t a p p e a rto
com e w i t hi n t he R ooke r - Fe ldm an do ctri ne, ” but“ [a ] pl ai nt i ff al l egi ng [b re ac h o f a
s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e nt ] i s nota l l e gi ng a l e ga l e r r or by the s t a t e c our t ; r a the r , he ors he i s a l l egi ng a w rong ful ac tby t he adverse party. ” I d
. at11 40 -41 (ci t at i on om i t t ed). Ab b o t t ’ s b r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c tc l a i m i s n o tb a r r e d b y C a l i f o r n i a p r e c l u s i o n l a w. T h e su i t i s notr e s j udi c a t a be c a us e “ C a l i f or ni a l a w de f

i ne s a c a us e of

a c t i on by focusi ng on the ‘ pri m ar y r i gh t ’ atst ake. ” T e n s o rG r o u

p v . C ity o

f G le n da le , 1 7 C a l. R p tr . 2 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 2 ( C t. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d )
. T h e in ju r y to4

O koy e f r om A bbott ’ s f

r a udul e nttr a ns f

e r , a nd t he a l l e ged i n

j u ry t o A bbot tf

r om O koy e ’ s purpor t e d br e a c h of c ont r a c t , do not i m pl i c a t e the s a m e r i ght , a nd the a c t i on th u s d o e s n o t s e e k to r e litig a te th e s a m e c a u s e o f a c tio n . Se e i d. A bb ot tdi d n otfo rf

eit h ercl ai m for bre ac h o f c on tra ctby fa i l i ng t o p l ea d i tas
a d e f e n s e in th e C a lif

o r n ia a c tio n b e c a u s e C a lif o r n ia ’s u s u a l c o m p u ls o r y c r o s s - c la im
s t a tut e doe s n o t ap pl y w he r e “ [ t ] he pe r s on w ho f a i l e d t o pl e a d the r e l a t e d c a us e of
ac ti o n d id n otfi l e a n answ ert o t he com pl ai ntagai nsthi m . ” C al
. C i v. P roc. C od e § 42 6. 30 (b)( 2) (200 4). N or do es C al i forni a col l at er al es t op pel do ctri ne bar A bb ot t ’ s bre ac h o f c on t ra ct cl ai m . T he j ud gm ent agai nst her w as a def aul tj ud gm entand t he com pl ai ntand o rder in th e C a lif

o r n ia a c tio n s h o w n o c o n s i d e r a tio n o f , n o rth e s ta te c o u r t’s n e e d to im p lic itly c o n s id e r , th e p u rp o r te d e f f e c t o f th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t. See G ot t l i eb v. Kest , 46 C al
. R pt r. 3d 7, 34 (C t . A pp . 20 06 ) ( defa ul tj ud gm entw i th exp re ss fi nd i ng s) ; Fo u r S ta r E l ec. , In c. v. F & H C o n str. , 10 C a l
. R ptr . 2d 1, 3 ( C t . A pp. 1992) ( quot i ng Mi t chel l v. Jones , 34 2 P
. 2d 50 3, 58 6-87 (C al
. C t . A pp . 19 59 ))
. A F F IR M E D i n p art. V A C A T E D an d R E M A N D E D i n p art. E a c h p a r ty
s h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts a n d f e e s o n th is a p p e a l.