Joseph Shalant v. State Bar of California

Ninth Circuit

Joseph Shalant v. State Bar of California

699 F. App'x 724

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 2017

Docket17-55050

StatusUnpublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 724 (Joseph Shalant v. State Bar of California) 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

Joseph Shalant v. State Bar of California, 699 F. App'x 724 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Leib Shalant, a disbarred attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a California State Bar Rule violates the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shalant’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Shalant’s equal protection claim was raised in a prior California State Bar Court proceeding that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6084(a) (‘When no petition to review or to reverse or modify has been filed by either party within the time allowed therefor ... the decision or order of the State Bar Court shall be final and enforceable,”); Wehrli v. County of Orange, 175 F.3d 692, 694 (9th Cir. 1999) (according preclusive effect to administrative proceedings “where judicial review of the administrative adjudication was available but unused”); see also Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809, 352 P.3d 378, 382 n.1, & 386-87 (2015) (setting forth requirements for res judica-ta, or claim preclusion, defining primary rights doctrine, and discussing privity).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Shalant’s requests for costs, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Leib Shalant, a disbarred attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a California State Bar Rule violates the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shalant’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Shalant’s equal protection claim was raised in a prior California State Bar Court proceeding that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6084(a) (‘When no petition to review or to reverse or modify has been filed by either party within the time allowed therefor ... the decision or order of the State Bar Court shall be final and enforceable,”); Wehrli v. County of Orange, 175 F.3d 692, 694 (9th Cir. 1999) (according preclusive effect to administrative proceedings “where judicial review of the administrative adjudication was available but unused”); see also Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809, 352 P.3d 378, 382 n.1, & 386-87 (2015) (setting forth requirements for res judica-ta, or claim preclusion, defining primary rights doctrine, and discussing privity).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Shalant’s requests for costs, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 F. App'x 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-shalant-v-state-bar-of-california-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack