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 by 9th C i r . R . 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
R I C H A R D C H U D A C O F F , M .D ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t,
v. U N I V ERSI TY M ED I CA L CEN TER; STEV E SI SO LA K ; TO M CO LLI N S; LA RRY BRO W N ; LA W REN CE W E E K L Y ; C H R IS G IU N C H IG L IA N I; S US AN B R AG E R ; R OR Y R E I D; ME DI C AL AN D D E NT AL S T AF F OF THE UNI VERS I TY M EDI CAL C ENTE R OF SOUTHERN NEVA DA ; KA THLE EN S I L V E R ; J O H N E L L E R T O N , M .D .; F R E D E R IC K L IP P M A N N ; JI M C H R I S T E N S E N ; C H A R L E S B L O O M; MAR I E T T A N E L S ON ; J . DY L AN C UR R Y; KS HA MA DA P HT AR Y; B OA R D O F T R US T E E S OF UN I VE R S I T Y ME DI C AL C E NT E R OF S OU T HE RN N E VA DA ; J OH N ON YE MA; B E VE R L Y N E YL AN D; AL B E R T C AP AN NA ; VI C T OR GR I GO R I E V; L AU R A B I L OD E AU ; M I CH A EL CA SEY ; STEV EN BECK ER, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16232 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 -cv -0 1 6 7 9 -R C J-R JJ
ME MOR AN DU M * 

# FI LED APR18 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSC huda c of f’ s not i c e of

appe a l onl ym e nt i one d the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of 1 hi s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on, notthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s due p r o c e s s c la im s . A lth o u g h th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e r e q u ir e th a t a n o tic e o f ap p e a l “d e s ig n a te th e ju d g m e n t, o r d e r , o rp a rt th e r e o f b e in g ap p e a le d ,” F e d. R . A pp. P . 3( c ) ( 1) ( B ) , w e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ w ] he n . . . apa rty s e e ks t o a r gue th e m e r i t s o f

a n o r d e rth a td o e s n o tap p e a ro n th e f a c e o f th e n o t i c e o f

ap p e a l , we ge ne r a l l y c ons i de rtw o f a c t or s : ( 1) w he the rthe i nt e ntt o appe a l as pe c i f i c j udgm e nt c a n b e f a ir ly in f e rr e d a n d ( 2 ) w h e th e rth e ap p e lle e w a s p r e ju d ic e d b y th e m is ta k e ,” L ol l iv . Cnt

y . of O r ange , 351 F . 3d 410, 414 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d)
. W he r e “ apa rty appe a l s a f t e ri t s m ot i on f

or r e c ons i de r a t i on w a s de ni e d, ” w e ha ve “ f r e que nt l y ” i nf

e rr e d i nt e ntt o appe a l the u n d e r ly in g d is p o s itiv e o r d e r . I d. W e ha ve m a de s uc h a n i nf e r e nc e , a nd a l s o f

ound al a c k of pr e j udi c e t o appe l l e e s , w he r e the appe l l a ntof f e r s a“ f ul l di s c us s i on of

the [und er l yi ng di sposi t i ve] order i n h i s openi ng appel l at e bri ef ” and the appel l ee s p ro v i d e a “ d et ai l ed resp o n se” th at“ d i sp o se[s] o f an y cl ai m s th at[th e ap p el l ees] w er e m i sl ed or harm ed. ” I d. a t4 1 4

– 1 5 . T h i s d e s c r i b e s o u rs i tu a t i o n h e r e , s o we r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r d e rd is m is s in g C h u d a c o f f’s d u e p r o c e s s c la im s , n o t o n ly the deni al of the m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on . In l i gh tof ou r di sposi t i on w i th regard t o the or de rdi s m i s s i ng the c l a i m s , C huc a dof f’ s c ha l l e nge t o the de ni a l of the m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n is m o o t. 2

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC l i ve J one s , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 18, 2013 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , F A R R IS , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R i char d C hu dacoff app ea l s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entof di sm i ss al and sum m ary j ud gem enton hi s due proces s c l ai m s agai nstthe U ni vers i ty M edi ca l 1T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so d i sm i ssed C h u d aco ff’ s d u e p ro cess cl ai m s ag ai n st 2 the U M C M edi ca l E xecut i ve C om m i tt ee , bu tC hu dacoff does notcogent l y app ea l th is d is m is s a l, s o w e d o n o t c o n s id e rit. A toral ar gu m ent , w e w er e a dv i se d thatJ. D yl an C urryand C hu dacoff had 3 a gr e e d tha tC urry c oul d be di s m i s s e d f r om thi s appe a l w i th pr e j udi c e a s t o a ny a nd a l l c l a i m s a s s e rt e d a ga i ns tC urry a s a n i ndi vi dua l ori n hi s c apa c i ty a s am e m be rof the M e di c a l S t a f

f
. C huda c of

f’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m s a r e thus D I S M I S S E D t o the e xt e ntthe y a r e a ga i ns tC urry i ndi vi dua l l y ori n hi s c apa c i ty a s am e m be rof the M edi ca l S t af

f. 3 C ent erof S ou thern N evada (“ U M C ”) , U M C C hi ef E xecut i ve O ff

i ce r K athl ee n S i l ver, the U M C B oard of T rust ee s ( “ B oard”), the U M C M edi ca l and D ent al S t af f ( “ M e d i c a l St a f

f ” ) , a n d v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l d o c t o r s . Th e c l a i ms a g a i n s tU M C, 2 S i l ver, the B oard, and the M edi ca l S t af f w er e di sm i ss ed by the di stri ctcourtbase d
on cl ai m prec l usi on . T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed the cl ai m s a gai nstthe i nd i vi du al d o c to r s b a s e d o n is s u e p r e c lu s io n . 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 vi e w di s m i s s a l s ba s e d on both c l a i m pr e c l us i on a nd i s s ue pr e c l us i on de
n o v o . Sa n R em o Hot el

L
. P
. v. Sa n Francisc o C i t y & Cnt y. , 364 F . 3d 1088, 1094 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; W

. R adi o Se r vs . C o. v . G l i c km an , 12 3 F . 3d 11 89 , 11 92 (9th C i r. 1997)
. W e r e ve r s e a l l of the appe a l e d di s m i s s a l s , e xc e pta s not e d, a nd r e m a nd f or 3 fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. I4

W here , as here , fe dera l -c ou rtj uri sdi ct i on i s bas ed on the pres ence of a f e d e r a l q u e s tio n , f

e d e r a l p r e c lu s io n d o c tr in e ap p lie s . See T a y lo rv . S tu r

g e ll , 553 U .S . 8 8 0 , 8 9 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e a ls o H e is e rv . W

o o dr u ff , 327 U . S . 726, 733 ( 1946)
. T he d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t N e v a d ap r e c lu s io n la w w a s n o t m a te r ia lly di ff er entfr om fe dera l prec l usi on l aw and then p roce edi ng t o app l y N evada l aw th a t , a tl e a s ta s ap p l i e d b y th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt , d o e s d i f f e rf r o m f e d e r a l l a w. II U nde rf e de r a l l a w , the r e m us tbe a n “ i de nt i ty of c l a i m s ” f

orac l a i m t o be b a rr e d b y c la im p r e c lu s io n . W
. R a d i o Servs. , 1 2 3 F . 3 d at1 1 9 2 . T h e m o st i m po rt antfa ct or i n d et erm i ni ng w hether there i s an i dent i ty of c l ai m s i s w hether the tw o act i on s “ ar i se ou tof the sa m e transac t i on al nu cl eus of f ac t s. ” Fund f

or A ni m al s , I nc . v . L uj an , 962 F . 2d 1391, 1398 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng C
. D. A nde rs on & C o. v . L e m os , 83 2 F . 2d 10 97 , 11 00 (9th C i r. 19 87 ))
. H er e, C hu dacoff’ s c l ai m s i n the ac t i on curr ent l y bef ore thi s c ou rt(“ Chu da cof f II ”) ari se o u t o f e v e n ts th a t a r e a lm o s t w h o lly s e p a r a te f r o m th e e v e n ts f

r o m w h ic h h is cl ai m s i n h i s f

i rs tac t i on (“ Ch u da c o

ff I ” ) a r o s e . T h e f

a c t th a t s o m e o f

th e e v e n ts f r om w hi c h the c l a i m s i n Chu da cof f II a r is e o c c u rr e d p r io rto e n try o f ju d g m e n t in Ch u da c o ff I d o e s n o t d ic ta te d is m is s a l b a s e d o n c la im p r e c lu s io n . L aw lor v. N at i onal Sc r e e n Se r v i c e C or

p. , 34 9 U . S . 32 2 (19 55 ), i s nott o the contrary . In that5

c a s e , though the C ourthe l d tha tc l a i m s a r i s i ng pr i ort o the e ntry of apr i or j ud gm entw er e barre d, there w er e no cl ai m s ari si ng fr om event s thatoccurre d b e tw e e n th e f

ilin g o f th e f ir s t c o m p la in t an d th e e n try o f th e f ir s t ju d g m e n t. I

d. at 327–28. H e r e , by c ontr a s t , m os tof C huda c of

f’ s c l a i m s i n Chu da cof

f II a r i s e f r om e ve nt s tha toc c urr e d a f

t e rhe f i l e d hi s c om pl a i nti n Ch u da c o ff I
. C huda c of

f w a s not obl i ge d t o a m e nd the c om pl a i nti n Chu da cof f I t o i nc l ude c l a i m s a r i s i ng f r om d is tin c t e v e n ts th a t o c c u rr e d b e tw e e n th e f ilin g o f th a t c o m p la in t a n d ju d g m e n t in th a t a c tio n . See 18 C harl es A l an W ri gh tetal
. , F eder al P ra ct i ce and P roce du re § 4409 ( 2d e d. 2012) ( “ M os tc a s e s rul e tha ta n a c t i on ne e d i nc l ude onl y the port i ons of the cl ai m du e a tthe t i m e of c om m enci ng thatac t i on , fr equent l y observi ng that the opportuni ty t o f

i l e as uppl e m e nt a l c om pl a i nti s nota n obl i ga t i on. ” )
. T he di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng C huda c of f’ s c l a i m s a ga i ns tU M C , S i l ve r , the B oa r d, a nd the M e di c a l S t a f f ba s e d on c l a i m pr e c l us i on.

II I U nde rf e de r a l l a w , the di s tr i c tc ourtm a y ha ve c om e t o the r i ghtc onc l us i on a tthe t i m e i tr e nde r e d i t s de c i s i on di s m i s s i ng the due pr oc e s s c l a i m s br ought agai nstthe i nd i vi du al do ct ors bas ed on i ss ue precl usi on . W here the re l evantpart of a deci si on un derl yi ng a rul i ng base d o n i ss ue precl usi on i s r ever se d, ho w ever , th e ru lin g b a s e d o n is s u e p r e c lu s io n c a n n o t s ta n d
. See O rnel las v. O akley , 6186

F .2 d 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) ; see a l so 18 C harl es A l an W ri gh tetal
. , F eder al P r a c t i c e & P r oc e dur e § 4433 ( 2d e d. 2012) ( “ [ A ] s e c ond j udgm e ntba s e d upon the p r e c lu s iv e e f

f e c ts o f th e f ir s t ju d g m e n t s h o u ld n o t s ta n d if th e f ir s t ju d g m e n t is
r e v e r s e d .” )
. T he i s s ue tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourthe r e de t e rm i ne d tha ti tw a s pr e c l ude d f r om c o n s id e r in g w a s w h e th e rth e in d iv id u a l d o c to r s w e r e a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te l a w . B utw e r e ve r s e d the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n Chu da cof f I tha tthe r e w a s no ge nui ne i s s ue of

m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rthe i ndi vi dua l doc t or s i n tha ta c t i on
w e r e a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te la w . Chu da cof

f v. U ni v. Med. C tr. of

S. N ev . , 649 F . 3d 1143, 1149–51 ( 9th C i r . 2011)
. A f t e rourpa rt i a l r e ve r s a l i n Ch u da c o ff I, there i s no d ec i si on thathas notbeen rever se d regardi ng w hether a ny i nd i vi du al doc t ora c t i ng i n c onne c t i on w i th C huda c of f’ s pr oc e e di ngs w a s a c t i ng unde rthe
c o l o ro f s t a t e l a w . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr e d i n d i s mi s s i n g th e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms a ga i ns ta l l i ndi vi dua l doc t or s r e m a i ni ng i n thi s a c t i on. W e th u s r e v e r s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s s u mma ry j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f U M C, S ilv e r , th e B o ar d , th e M e d ic a l S ta f f , a n d a ll in d iv id u a l d o c to r s r e m a in in g in th is
a c t i on.RE VERS ED I N PART, AN D REM AN DED FOR FURT HER P R O C E E D I N G S .