APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA V. HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, No. 20-55302 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 24 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an individual, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-55302 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00512-L-AGS Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Aparna Vashisht-Rota appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging employment claims under California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal * 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). under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). 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 Vashisht-Rota’s claims in this action as compulsory counterclaims was proper because the claims arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the claims being litigated in a pending Utah state court case, No. 170100325, Howell Mgmt. Servs. LLC v. August Educ. Grp., et al. See Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a); Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 827 F.2d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The question whether the [Plaintiff’s] claims are compulsory counterclaims which should have been pleaded in the earlier. . . state court action is a question of state law.”); Yanaki v. Iomed Inc., 116 P.3d 962, 963-65 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (under Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a)(1), employee’s discrimination claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been filed in employer’s earlierfiled action, even if administrative remedies were not yet exhausted; the employment relationship was the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the employer’s claims); see also Beck v. Fort James Corp. (In re Crown Vantage, Inc.), 421 F.3d 963, 973 n.7 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Federal courts will not permit an action to be maintained where the claims asserted should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier action.”). We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on 2 20-55302 appeal, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Appellees’ motion to strike Vashisht-Rota’s second supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 49) is granted. The Clerk will strike Docket Entry No. 42. All other pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 20-55302
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.
