Raimi Shoaga v. A.P. Moller-Maersk Group

384 F. App'x 620
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 17, 2010
Docket08-17450
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 384 F. App'x 620 (Raimi Shoaga v. A.P. Moller-Maersk Group) 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
Raimi Shoaga v. A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, 384 F. App'x 620 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Raimi Shoaga appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action arising from his shipment of personal goods from Oakland, California to Lagos, Nigeria. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002) (res judicata); McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2004) (collateral estoppel). We affirm.

*621 The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because Shoaga has already litigated his claims arising out of the shipment of these goods. See Shoaga v. Bolsada, No. C 05-02213 SBA, slip op. at 3 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 11, 2006); see also Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956 (describing elements of res judicata); McQuillion, 369 F.3d at 1096 (describing elements of collateral estoppel).

Shoaga’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appellees’ requests to strike and for sanctions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

Shoaga v. Maersk, Inc.
178 L. Ed. 2d 781 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
384 F. App'x 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raimi-shoaga-v-ap-moller-maersk-group-ca9-2010.