Home/Ninth Circuit/Keicy Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership

Keicy Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 28, 2022
Docket21-15936
StatusUnpublished

This text of Keicy Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership (Keicy Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership) 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
Keicy Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership, (9th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEICY CHUNG, No. 21-15936

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00469-LEK-RT

v. MEMORANDUM* VISTANA VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC.; STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, FKA Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Keicy Chung appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his diversity action alleging state law claims related to his purchase of a timeshare

* 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). property in Hawaii. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Chung’s fourth

motion to amend his complaint because Chung’s proposed amended claims were

barred by res judicata and amendment would have been futile. See id. (dismissal

without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); DKN

Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth claim and

issue preclusion doctrine under California law); Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns

v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 557 (Ct. App. 2004) (claim preclusion

“bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that

could have been litigated”); see also Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 & n.4

(2008) (the preclusive effect of judgments in diversity cases is determined by the

preclusion rules of the state in which the rendering court sits).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by construing Chung’s

objection as a motion for reconsideration and denying it because Chung failed to

establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review

and bases for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-15936

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

Related

Taylor v. Sturgell
553 U.S. 880 (Supreme Court, 2008)
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
656 F.3d 1034 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles
24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543 (California Court of Appeal, 2004)
DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber
352 P.3d 378 (California Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Keicy Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keicy-chung-v-vistana-vacation-ownership-ca9-2022.