N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT REZA NAGAHI,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. EM PLOYM ENT DEVELOPM ENT DEPAR TM ENT; DEB OR AH B R ONOW ; JAM ES C R

AW LEY; PAULINE GEE; TALB O TT A. SM ITH; FOR REST E. B OOM ER ; PETER

KINDSC HI; TOM C AM PB ELL, in the ir individual a nd offic ia l c a pa c itie s , a s pre se nt or form e r offic e rs of C a lifornia

Em ploy m e nt De ve lopm e nt De p artm e nt,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, and R . ALEXANDER

AC OSTA, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s the Unite d State s Se c re t ary of La bor, De fe nda

n t. No. 18-15074 D.C . No. 5:07-c v-06268-EJD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt 

# F IL ED MAY4 2022 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M ay 4, 2022 ** B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s R e z a Na ga hi a ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r following a re m a n d from this c ourt. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t for c le ar e rror and c onc lusions of la w de novo. Le e v . W

e st C oast Life Ins. C o. , 688 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th C ir. 2012). W e a ffirm . W e pre viously

re m ande d this c a se for the distric t c ourt to c onside r two

“ possible ” form s of re lie f to whic h Na ga hi m ight be e ntitle d, inc luding: (1) “ a writte n notific ation re ga

rding his a

pplic ation for R e m e dia l Educ ation be ne fits” and (2) “ the a ppropria te m e a sure of Additional Tra de R e a djustm e nt Allowa nc e (TR A) m one ta ry be ne fits to whic h

he is e ntitle d by

sta t ute . ” The distric t c ourt c o m

plie d with this orde

r on re m a n d. First, it is undispute d that Na ga hi re c e ive d his written

notic e re ga

rding R e m e dia l Educ ation be n e fits. Se c ond, a fte r c onside ring the e vide nc e subm i tte d by the pa rtie s , the distric t c ourt he ld tha t Na g ahi wa s not e ntitle d to Additiona l TR A be ne fits. This holding is

* * The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2we ll-supporte d by the undispute d fa c ts a

nd la w. Na ga hi c onc e de d tha

t he wa s te m pora rily e m ploy e d in Fe brua

ry an d M arc h of 2005 a

nd did not a

pply for une m ploy m e n t insura nc e be ne fits. Eve n though Naga hi quit the

job, he m a

y have qua lifie d for une m

ploy m e nt be ne fits if hequit for good c a use . Exha

ustion of une m ploy m e n t insura nc e be ne fits is a

pre re quisitefor the re c e ipt of TR A be ne fits. 19 U.S.C . § 2291(a )(3)(B ) (2005); 20 C .F.R . § 617.11(a)(2)(v)(A) (2005). C ontra ry to Na ga hi’ s a lle gation, the2007 sta te a dm inistra

tive de c ision did not award Additional TR

A be ne fits. It found tha

t: (1) Na ga

h i’ s a pplic at ion wa s tim e ly in light of the

de fe nda nts’ fa ilure to give him

notic e of the a

pplic ation de a dline and (2) be ne fits we re pa

y a ble , provide d he wa s “ o the rwise e ligible . ” The distric t c ourt fa ithfully c om p l ie d with our pre vious re m and orde r. W e find no e rror in its ruling. Na ga hi a rgue s tha t re s judic ata

ba rre d the de fe nda

nts from ra ising sta

tutory e ligibility on re m and. Howe v e r, no a ge n c y de c ision a c tua lly

litiga te d a nd ne c e ssa rily de c ide d whe the r Na ga

hi ha d e xha

uste d his une m

ploy m e nt be ne fits. Se e W hite v . C ity of Pasade na , 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th C ir. 2012) (se tting forth the e le m e nts of re s judic ata ). Nor did judic ia l e stoppe l pre c lude the de fe nda n ts from arguing tha

t Na ga h i wa s not sta

tutorily e ligiblefor be ne fits. De fe nda nts did not c onc e de sta

tutory e ligibility . Se e Baughman v . W alt Disne y W orld C o. , 685 F.3d 1131, 1133 (9th 3C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining tha t judic ia l e stoppe l only

a pplie s if the pa

rty ’ s position is

“ c l e arly inc onsiste nt with its e arlie r position.” ). Fina lly , the re is no e vide nc e of bia s on the pa rt of the distric t judge . Adve rse rulings, a lone , do not wa rrant re c usa l or e s ta

blish bia s. Leslie

v . Grupo IC A , 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th C ir. 1999). AFFIRM E D.

4