Bernzomatic

MEMORANDUM

Andrew W. Shalaby, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging products liability and related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny declaratory relief. Wagner v. Prof'l Eng’rs in Cal. Gov’t, 354 F.3d 1036 , 1040 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shalaby’s claim for declaratory relief because, contrary to Shalaby’s contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is the applicable standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in federal court. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 582, 597 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); see also Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir.2010) (in diversity cases, the Federal Rules of Evidence govern generally, and in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony, no exception applies).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a pre-filing restriction against Shalaby after giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making findings regarding his frivolous litigation history,…