Emiel Kandi v. Heritage Financial Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Emiel Kandi v. Heritage Financial Corporation

692 F. App'x 415

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 2017

Docket16-35661

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 692 F. App'x 415 (Emiel Kandi v. Heritage Financial Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emiel Kandi v. Heritage Financial Corporation, 692 F. App'x 415 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Emiel A. Kandi appeals pro se from the district court’s judg *416 ment dismissing his action alleging a Racketeer Influenced.and Corrupt Organizations Act claim and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal based on res judica-ta). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kandi’s claims against Heritage Financial Corporation on the basis of res judicata. See Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052 (setting forth the three-factor test to establish res judicata).

Dismissal of Kandi’s claims against the remaining defendants was proper because the issue of when Kandi’s claims accrued was actually litigated and decided in Kan-di’s prior federal court action. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kandi leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied when proposed amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Kandi’s contentions that the dismissal of his action violated his right to a jury trial or due process.

We do not consider Kandi’s arguments regarding the resolution of his prior action because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal,

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *416 ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Emiel A. Kandi appeals pro se from the district court’s judg *416 ment dismissing his action alleging a Racketeer Influenced.and Corrupt Organizations Act claim and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal based on res judica-ta). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kandi’s claims against Heritage Financial Corporation on the basis of res judicata. See Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052 (setting forth the three-factor test to establish res judicata).

Dismissal of Kandi’s claims against the remaining defendants was proper because the issue of when Kandi’s claims accrued was actually litigated and decided in Kan-di’s prior federal court action. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kandi leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied when proposed amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Kandi’s contentions that the dismissal of his action violated his right to a jury trial or due process.

We do not consider Kandi’s arguments regarding the resolution of his prior action because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal,

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *416 ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 F. App'x 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emiel-kandi-v-heritage-financial-corporation-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack