Stanford v. Lombardo

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 18, 2026
Docket24-6644
StatusUnpublished

This text of Stanford v. Lombardo (Stanford v. Lombardo) 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
Stanford v. Lombardo, (9th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRUDY STANFORD, No. 24-6644 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00642-CSD Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

JOSEPH MICHAEL LOMBARDO; JACK ROBB; ROB BOEHMER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Craig S. Denney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted March 16, 2026***

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Trudy Stanford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a dispute over funds

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). from a deferred compensation account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) based on

issue preclusion. Garity v. APWU Nat’l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.

2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stanford’s action because the issue of

whether she is the proper beneficiary of funds from a deferred compensation

account has already been litigated and decided in a final judgment on the merits in

her prior state court suit. See Hardwick v. County of Orange, 980 F.3d 733, 740

(9th Cir. 2020) (“[A] federal court considering whether to apply issue preclusion

based on a prior state court judgment must look to state preclusion law.” (internal

quotations omitted)); Pike v. Hester, 891 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting

forth the elements for applying issue preclusion under Nevada law).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6644

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

Related

Rosemary Garity v. Apwu National Labor Org.
828 F.3d 848 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Richard Pike v. J. Hester
891 F.3d 1131 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Preslie Hardwick v. County of Orange
980 F.3d 733 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stanford v. Lombardo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanford-v-lombardo-ca9-2026.