Case Name: Jon-Marc DOBRIN, a Professional Corporation, individually and as the assignee of James W. Coulter, Chapter 11 Trustee for Gente Unida, Inc., Western Realty, Glover Russell Cogar, Jr., the Cogar Family Trust and Sunshine Diversified, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-06
Citations: 4 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 99-55300; D.C. No. CV-97-09015-CBM
Parties: Jon-Marc DOBRIN, a Professional Corporation, individually and as the assignee of James W. Coulter, Chapter 11 Trustee for Gente Unida, Inc., Western Realty, Glover Russell Cogar, Jr., the Cogar Family Trust and Sunshine Diversified, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before D.W. NELSON, BRUNETTI, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 4
Pages: 337–337

Head Matter:
Jon-Marc DOBRIN, a Professional Corporation, individually and as the assignee of James W. Coulter, Chapter 11 Trustee for Gente Unida, Inc., Western Realty, Glover Russell Cogar, Jr., the Cogar Family Trust and Sunshine Diversified, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 99-55300.
D.C. No. CV-97-09015-CBM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 2000.
Decided Feb. 6, 2001.
Before D.W. NELSON, BRUNETTI, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
For the reasons stated in the district court's orders of May 18 and December 3, 1998, we affirm the court's finding that res judicata bars the instant action. In so doing, we reject appellant's contention that a recent change in the controlling principles of law supporting the original judgment precludes the application of res judicata here. See 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4415 (1981) ("Change in the controlling principles of law ordinarily does not warrant denial of claim preclusion.") (citing cases).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.