Case Name: Wesley I. NUNN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melissa A. LEBLANC, aka Melissa Fenswick, aka Melissa Leblanc-Fenswick, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-23
Citations: 672 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 15-17488
Parties: Wesley I. NUNN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melissa A. LEBLANC, aka Melissa Fenswick, aka Melissa Leblanc-Fenswick, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 712–712

Head Matter:
Wesley I. NUNN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melissa A. LEBLANC, aka Melissa Fenswick, aka Melissa Leblanc-Fenswick, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17488
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 23, 2016
Wesley I. Nunn, Pro Se
Karen Olson, Attorney, Law Office of Karen D. Olson, Crescent City, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Andrew J. Stunich, Attorney, Perlman & Stunich, Eureka, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Wesley I. Nunn appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003), but we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Nunn's action was proper because the action is barred by claim and issue preclusion. See White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that California's issue preclusion doctrine "precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings" and setting forth six criteria to determine whether an issue is precluded (citation omitted)); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (California's doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a primary rights theory); MIB, Inc. v. Superior Court, 106 Cal.App.3d 228, 164 Cal.Rptr. 828, 832 (1980) (prior dismissals on procedural grounds have preclusive effect as to the procedural issue decided).
We reject as meritless Nunn's contention that a comment allegedly made by a state trial court judge at an oral hearing, and not included in any subsequent written order, precludes the application of claim preclusion to this action.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.