Theodore R. Mendelson v. New Hampshire Insurance Company

74 F.3d 1246 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Theodore R. MENDELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-56088. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 12, 1995. Decided Jan. 17, 1996. 1 Before: SCHROEDER and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Theodore R. Mendelson appeals the district court's dismissal of his diversity action against New Hampshire Insurance Company for breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The district court held that Mendelson's suit was, under California law, an impermissible attempt to split a cause of action. We affirm, because under California law, Mendelson, an assignor, cannot bring an action against New Hampshire that is separate from his partial assignee Nygard's earlier suit against New Hampshire. See Cain v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 121 Cal.Rptr. 200, 207-08…