Davidson

Davidson v. Culver City

Good Law
159 F. App'x 756
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 1, 2005No. 04-56889; D.C. No. CV-04-02220-GAFCalifornia1,115 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lynne Davidson and Sandra Kallander appeal from the district court’s grant of Culver City’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Crv. P. 12(b)(6). They also appeal the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and denial of a motion for reconsideration. We omit the relevant facts as they are known to the parties.

I

Res judicata, which “precludes the parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in [a prior] action,” Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 , 101 S.Ct. 2424 , 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981), can serve as the basis for the grant of a motion to dismiss. *758 See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002). This doctrine is relevant only as to Davidson. See Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 798 , 116 S.Ct. 1761 , 135 L.Ed.2d 76 (1996).

Here, the elements of res judicata are satisfied: there is a final judgment on the merits, privity between parties, and an identity of claims. Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir.2005) (citations omitted). The stipulated declaratory judgment of Davidson et al. v. City of Culver…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.