WESLEY NUNN V. MELISSA LE BLANC, No. 15-17488 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WESLEY I. NUNN, No. 15-17488 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01820-NJV v. MEMORANDUM* MELISSA A. LEBLANC, AKA Melissa Fenswick, AKA Melissa LeblancFenswick, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nandor J. Vadas, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted December 14, 2016*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. ** *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Wesley I. Nunn appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003), but we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of Nunn’s action was proper because the action is barred by claim and issue preclusion. See White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that California’s issue preclusion doctrine “precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings” and setting forth six criteria to determine whether an issue is precluded (citation omitted)); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (California’s doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a primary rights theory); MIB, Inc. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. Rptr. 828, 832 (Ct. App. 1980) (prior dismissals on procedural grounds have preclusive effect as to the procedural issue decided). We reject as meritless Nunn’s contention that a comment allegedly made by a state trial court judge at an oral hearing, and not included in any subsequent 2 15-17488 written order, precludes the application of claim preclusion to this action. AFFIRMED. 3 15-17488

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.