Marshall Field v. American Mortgage Express

Good Law
584 F. App'x 775
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 11, 201412-16311California632 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Cherie Johnson and Maria Ignacio appeal the district court’s final judgment following the denial of their motion to substitute as new plaintiffs and class representatives in this putative class action. On appeal, Johnson and Ignacio challenge the district court’s determination that their claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

As a threshold matter, we conclude that the district court neither disregarded California res judicata law nor supplanted it with the federal common law. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1738 and our precedent, the district court appropriately applied California res judicata principles, including-the requirement that there be a “final judgment on the merits.”

In applying California’s res judicata law, the district court correctly determined that Johnson’s and Ignacio’s respective claims were precluded. First, Johnson’s state agency proceedings before the California Labor Commissioner resulted in a final judgment on the merits and involved the same parties and claims in this federal action. See MHC Fin. Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir.2013). Based…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.