Case Name: John Theodore ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRIVATE CAPITAL GROUP; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-21
Citations: 481 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 11-16946
Parties: John Theodore ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRIVATE CAPITAL GROUP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
John Theodore ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRIVATE CAPITAL GROUP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-16946.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 21, 2012.
John Theodore Anderson, Henderson, NV, pro se.
Michael C. Van, Esquire, Shumway Van & Hansen, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
John Theodore Anderson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract and other state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Anderson's action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it was precluded by a final judgment on the merits in Anderson's prior Utah state court action against the same parties and alleging the same claims. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir.1982) ("[A] federal court sitting in diversity must apply the res judicata law of the state in which it sits."); Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 73 P.3d 325, 332 (Utah 2003) (listing elements of res judicata under Utah state law).
Anderson's remaining contentions with respect to personal jurisdiction in the prior Utah state court action, alleged breach of contract, estoppel, and "libel of review" are deemed waived because he failed to raise them before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Issues not expressly raised in the opening brief, including regarding the district court's imposition of sanctions, are deemed waived. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.