Case Name: MIDLAND INNOVATIONS, NV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEN WANG; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 713 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 16-17242
Parties: MIDLAND INNOVATIONS, NV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEN WANG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
MIDLAND INNOVATIONS, NV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEN WANG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-17242
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 23, 2018
Jerome Jay Blum, Herzlich & Blum LLP, Encino, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Hongdi Ren, Pro Se
Wen Wang, Pro Se
Weiping Chen, Pro Se
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, 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
Midland Innovations, NV, appeals from the district court's order dismissing its diversity action alleging state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal of an action as duplicative. Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Midland's action on the basis that the instant action is duplica-tive of an earlier-filed action, Midland Innovations, NV v. Weiland International Inc., et al., No. 4:07-mc-80257-CW. See id. at 689 (explaining that an action is duplica-tive if "the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties . to the action, are the same" and setting forth criteria for the "transaction test" to determine whether the causes of action are the same).
Midland's Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket Entry No. 9) and Chen's Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket Entry No. 20) are granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.