Azadpour v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 071108 FED09, 06-16960

Docket Nº:06-16960, 07-16556
Party Name:MOSTAFA ARAM AZADPOUR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 11, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

MOSTAFA ARAM AZADPOUR, Plaintiff - Appellant,


SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.; et al., Defendants - Appellees.

Nos. 06-16960, 07-16556

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 11, 2008


          Submitted July 1, 2008[**]

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D.C. No. CV-05-04087-MJJ D.C. No. CV-06-03272-MJJ Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding

          Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.


         In these consolidated appeals, Mostafa Aram Azadpour appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants and final judgment dismissing Azadpour’s actions alleging that he was wrongfully denied long-term disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Universal Health Servs. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004) (grant of summary judgment); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on res judicata); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998) (denial of remand), we affirm.

         In appeal No. 06-16960, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, entered on September 26, 2006. Azadpour advances no argument challenging the district court’s conclusions of law, and we therefore deem any such arguments abandoned. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that issues not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned). Contrary to his contention, Azadpour may not present for the first time on appeal purportedly new facts in opposition to summary judgment. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We have consistently held that a party may not raise new issues of fact on appeal after declining to present those facts before the trial court.”).

         In appeal No. 07-16556, we affirm the district court’s dismissal based on the doctrine of res judicata. See Tripati v. G.L. Henman, 857 F.2d 1366, 1367 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“The established rule in federal courts is that a final judgment retains all of its res judicata consequences pending decision...

To continue reading