Sullivan Equity Partners, LLC v. City of Los Angeles

introduction. The court considered—and for the most part admitted—every piece

of evidence for which Sullivan Equity advanced specific arguments. “The fact that

[Sullivan Equity] failed to avail [it]self of the full procedures provided by state law

does not constitute a sign of their inadequacy.” Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp.,

456 U.S. 461, 485 (1982).

Moreover, Sullivan Equity has not shown that the additional evidence it

sought to admit “could readily cause a different result.” Collins v. D.R. Horton,

Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore,

439 U.S. 322, 331 (1979)). Because Sullivan Equity has “fail[ed] to point to facts

that it was unable to present or how these facts would have affected the outcome,”

we conclude that it “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue[]” of

fairness before the state court. Ross v. Alaska, 189 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir.

1999).

2. Sullivan Equity’s other arguments lack merit. It contends that its

reservation under England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375

U.S. 411 (1964), prohibits the application of issue preclusion, but England

reservations do not insulate…