Ajesh Bhakta v. Dharmendra Bhakta
Opinion
Opinion
facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our
ruling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review a district
court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. See Curtis
v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2019).
The district court erred in holding that Plaintiffs’ federal lawsuit was
precluded by the prior state court litigation. Under California law, the doctrine of
claim preclusion requires that the prior proceedings (1) present identical claims or
issues, (2) constitute a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involve the same parties.
See Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342, 348 (Cal. 2010). There was
no final judgment in the state case.
Under California law, “[a] dismissal with prejudice following a settlement
constitutes a final judgment on the merits.” Estate of Redfield, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d
402, 407 (Ct. App. 2011). Although the California Superior Court dismissed the
state case with prejudice and entered a settlement pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 664.6, it did not enter a judgment, which is required to
2 effectuate a Section 664.6…