Yih v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-2625
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIHSHYR YIH, No. 23-2625 D.C. No. 4:23-cv-02033-JSW Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.; TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NORTH AMERICA; TSMC TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

JihShyr Yih appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

* 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). action alleging hiring discrimination under federal and state law. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the availability of issue

preclusion and for an abuse of discretion the decision to apply issue preclusion.

Wabakken v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 801 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2015).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yih’s action as barred by issue

preclusion because the issue of personal jurisdiction was actually litigated and

decided in Yih’s prior action in the Northern District of California and there was a

final judgment on the merits. See Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032,

1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth requirements for issue preclusion under

federal law); Kamilche Co. v. United States, 53 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1995)

(“[O]nce an issue is raised and determined, it is the entire issue that is precluded,

not just the particular arguments raised in support of it in the first case.” (citation

omitted)); see also Kendall v. Overseas Dev. Corp., 700 F.2d 536, 539 (9th Cir.

1983) (affirming dismissal because of issue preclusion where plaintiff had not

pleaded new facts “that would support a different result on the issue of

jurisdiction”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Yih a vexatious

litigant and imposing a pre-filing review order against him because the district

court provided Yih notice and a chance to be heard, compiled an adequate record

2 23-2625 for appellate review, made substantive findings of frivolousness and harassment,

and tailored the resulting order narrowly. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los

Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and

requirements for pre-filing review orders).

We reject as unsupported by the record Yih’s contention that defendants

defaulted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (providing that a default can be entered

against a party only if that party “has failed to plead or otherwise defend”).

Defendants’ request for judicial notice, set forth in the answering brief, is

granted.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-2625