Reynaga

MEMORANDUM *

Efrain Reynaga appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action, in which he alleged that Sun Studs, Inc. (the “Company”) engaged in employment discrimination by refusing to sponsor him for a millwright apprentice *730 ship program because of his Hispanic ethnicity. The district court dismissed the action on the basis of issue preclusion. As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here. We affirm.

“[A]s the parties] asserting issue preclusion, [the defendants] must show that the estopped issues are identical to issues litigated in a prior action.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Keating, 186 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.1999). We look to four factors to aid in “[d]etermining whether two issues are identical for purposes of collateral estoppel”:

Id. (citation omitted). Application of these four factors compels the conclusion that the issues raised in this case are identical to those litigated in Sun Studs I.

The second factor is clearly met: Reynaga’s new claim involves the application of the same rule of law, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , as that involved in Sun Studs I. The three remaining factors…