Northern California River Watch v. Humboldt Petroleum, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
On April 29, 2003, River Watch filed a Complaint, alleging a claim under California Business & Professional Code §§ 17200 et seq. in addition to certain claims under Section 6972 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 -6992k.
The district court dismissed the Complaint on January 28, 2004, on res judicata grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Discussion
A. Res Judicata
In 2001, a consent judgment was filed in the Superior Court of California, settling a complaint filed against Humboldt Petroleum by the District Attorney of Humboldt County.
California law determines the preclusive effect of the Consent Agreement, since it was filed in California state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ; City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp., 353 F.3d 758 , 762 (9th Cir.2003).
Citizens for Open Access to Sand & Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Assoc., 60 Cal.App.4th 1053 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, 84 (1998) (citations omitted). River Watch concedes that the second criterion, that there be a final judgment on the merits, is met by the Consent Agreement.
1. Identical Issues