Frank Bush v. James Zirul

MEMORANDUM

Frank E. Bush, James F. Bush, and Dixie L. Hagquist (“the Bushes”) appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their action alleging insurance fraud and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) arising out of a car accident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , We review de novo. Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1161, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Summary judgment of James Bush’s claims against GEICO was proper under Alaska’s doctrine of res judicata because the Bushes’ prior state court action against GEICO resulted in a final judgment, and James Bush’s claims “could have been decided in the first suit.” Tolstrup v. Miller, 726 P.2d 1304, 1306 (Alaska 1986) (explaining Alaska’s doctrine of res judicata); see also Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass’n v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1993) (federal courts are required to give state court judgments the same pre-clusive effect as would be given by state courts and apply forum state’s res judicata law). Moreover, James…