NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEICY CHUNG, No. 21-15936

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00469-LEK-RT

v.

MEMORANDUM*

VISTANA VACATION OWNERSHIP,

INC.; STARWOOD HOTELS AND

RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, FKA

Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Keicy Chung appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his diversity action alleging state law claims related to his purchase of a timeshare

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). property in Hawaii. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Chung’s fourth

motion to amend his complaint because Chung’s proposed amended claims were

barred by res judicata and amendment would have been futile. See id. (dismissal

without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); DKN

Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth claim and

issue preclusion doctrine under California law); Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns

v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 557 (Ct. App. 2004) (claim preclusion

“bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that

could have been litigated”); see also Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 & n.4

(2008) (the preclusive effect of judgments in diversity cases is determined by the

preclusion rules of the state in which the rendering court sits).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by construing Chung’s

objection as a motion for reconsideration and denying it because Chung failed to

establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review

and bases for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-15936