Harrison v. Capital Group Companies, Inc., 071112 FED9, 10-55923
|Party Name:||CRAIG E. HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||July 11, 2012|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 26, 2012 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00935-DOC-MLG
Craig E. Harrison appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his diversity action alleging tort claims arising from the termination of his consulting contract with the Capital Group Companies, Inc., and related state court litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harrison's defamation claim as barred by claim preclusion based on the state court judgment dismissing the same claim on the merits. See San Diego Police Officers' Ass'n v. San Diego City Emps.' Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing elements of claim preclusion under California law); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004) (a federal court relies on "the preclusion law of the state court that rendered the earlier judgment or judgments to determine whether subsequent federal litigation is precluded"); United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 249-51 (9th Cir. 1992) (in California, jurisdictional determinations have res judicata effect).
The district court properly dismissed Harrison's abuse of process claim as barred by issue preclusion based on the state court judgment rejecting the same issues. See Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 207 P.3d 506, 513-14 (Cal. 2009) (discussing elements of issue preclusion); see also Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing elements of California abuse of process claim).
The district court properly dismissed Harrison's extrinsic fraud claim because Harrison failed to allege facts showing that defendants prevented him from presenting his claim to the court. See Kougasian, 359 F.3d at 1140 ("Extrinsic fraud is conduct which prevents a party from presenting his claim in court."...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP