Shaun Xin Xu v. McLaughlin Research Institute for Biomedical Sciences, Inc.

MEMORANDUM ***

Shaun Xin Xu appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a grant of summary judgment on res judicata grounds de novo. Akootchook v. United States, 271 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly determined that Xu’s Title VII claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Xu could have brought the claims in his prior Montana state court action. See Troutt v. Colorado W. Ins. Co., 246 F.3d 1150 , 1156 (9th Cir.2001) (applying Montana’s res ju-dicata doctrine to determine preclusive effect of Montana state court judgment on subsequent federal action); Fisher v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 297 Mont. 201 , 991 P.2d 452, 456 (1999) (applying res judicata doctrine to claims that could have been brought, as well as claims actually brought); see also Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th *518 Cir.2001) (concluding that res judicata doctrine barred Title VII claims that could have been included in state court complaint).

The district court properly determined that the Montana…