Louis Jean-Louis v. City of Riverside

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 15, 2021
• Docket: 19-55175
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LOUIS J. JEAN-LOUIS, Relator; ex rel. No. 19-55175 United States of America, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 5:17-cv-00379-AG-AS

v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF RIVERSIDE; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2021** Pasadena, California

Before: MURGUIA, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant and relator below Louis J. Jean-Louis (“Jean-Louis”)

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint without leave to amend and

without prejudice to the interests of the United States. We have jurisdiction

* 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). pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jean-Louis argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in

dismissing his claims based on the doctrine of res judicata because California’s

public interest exception to res judicata applies. “Generally, arguments not raised

in the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.” In re

Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2014). We see no

reason to depart from our general practice here, especially considering Jean-Louis’

failure to offer any explanation for his delay in raising the argument. In any event,

even assuming California preclusion law applies, we are unconvinced that this case

falls within the “extremely narrow” public interest exception to res judicata

contemplated by California law. Arcadia Unified Sch. Dist. v. State Dep’t of

Educ., 825 P.2d 438, 442 (Cal. 1992).

AFFIRMED.