Rick Eaton v. Mark Siemens

571 F. App'x 620

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 30, 2014
• Docket: 12-16366
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Rick Eaton appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint on claim preclusion grounds. Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the City of Rocklin and the Rock-lin Police Officers’ Association, Eaton arbitrated his termination from the Rocklin Police Department. The arbitrator found good cause for Eaton’s termination, and the city manager accepted the decision without modification. Eaton did not pursue any review in state court and instead filed an action in district court, alleging that he was terminated in violation of his constitutional rights as well as several state statutes. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint as barred by res judicata.

The Supreme Court held in United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966), that administrative proceedings may be given preclusive effect if they have sufficient judicial character. The Supreme Court in University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 796-99, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986), then held that courts may give preclusive effect to unreviewed state administrative proceedings. This court has held in White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 928-29 (9th Cir.2012), that an arbitration proceeding like the one in this case has sufficient judicial character.

California’s claim preclusion doctrine provides that “[a] valid final judgment on the merits in favor of a defendant serves as a complete bar to further litigation on the same cause of action.” Slater v. Blackwood, 15 Cal.3d 791, 795, 126 Cal.Rptr. 225, 543 P.2d 593 (1975). To determine what constitutes the same cause of action, California applies the primary rights theory, “under which the invasion of one primary right gives rise to a single cause of action.” Id. The primary right at stake in both the arbitration proceeding and the district court action was Eaton’s right to continued employment with the Rocklin Police Department. See Miller v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir.1994); Takahashi v. Bd. of Trs., 783 F.2d 848, 851 (9th Cir.1986). Applying California’s claim preclusion principles, the arbitration proceeding precludes Eaton’s district court action.

AFFIRMED.

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