Court Opinion

ID: 9956649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 18:00:41.652718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:42.747882
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 2 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK DAVID PIÑA,                           No. 23-55614

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:23-cv-02672-MCS-SK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Frederick David Piña appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th

Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Stewart v. U.S.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on claim preclusion).

We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Piña’s action on the basis of claim

preclusion because Piña’s claims alleging improper conduct by State Farm’s

counsel during Piña’s personal injury litigation involved the same parties and

primary right raised in a prior state court action that resulted in a final judgment on

the merits. See Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd., 487 F.3d 759, 762 n.3 (9th Cir.

2007) (explaining that a state court dismissal is final when a party fails to appeal

within the time allowed); Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420

F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state

court judgment federal courts look to state law.”); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber,

352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under

California law).

      We reject as meritless Piña’s contentions that the district court acted without

authority in issuing its decisions, violated federal law, or was biased against Piña.

      Piña’s motions to consolidate (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 14 and 15) are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    23-55614