Ahmad v. Graco Fishing & Rental Tools, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-211
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Mr. TARIQ AHMAD, No. 24-211 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-00022-MMD-CSD v. MEMORANDUM* GRACO FISHING & RENTAL TOOLS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: H.A. THOMAS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, District Judge.***

Tariq Ahmad appeals the district court’s order dismissing his fraud-based

* 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). *** The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. claims against Graco Fishing & Rental Tools, Inc. (“Graco”). We review a district

court’s decision to grant a summary-judgment motion de novo.1 Stevens v.

Corelogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666, 672 (9th Cir. 2018). We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Ahmad’s claims were properly dismissed as claim barred. All three elements

of Nevada’s claim-preclusion test have been met here. See Weddell v. Sharp, 350

P.3d 80, 81 (Nev. 2015); Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497,

508 (2001). There is no dispute over the first and third elements of that test. There

was a valid, final judgment in the prior case Ahmad filed in Utah state court (“Utah

Case”), and the parties or their privies here are the same as in that case. Weddell,

350 P.3d at 81.

The remaining question is whether Ahmad could have brought his present

fraud claims in the Utah Case. See Weddell, 350 P.3d at 81. He could have. His

claims are based on the same operative facts as the negligent-misrepresentation

claim in the Utah Case.2 Id.

1 Ahmad incorrectly asserts that we should apply a two-step summary judgment standard of review. But the standard he cites only applies to Freedom of Information Act cases. Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2008). 2 The district court also correctly held that Ahmad’s claims are time barred because Ahmad knew of the factual basis for his fraud claims over three years before filing the present complaint. See NRS 11.190(3)(d); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-305(3).

2 24-211 AFFIRMED.

3 24-211