Melaleuca, Inc v. Daryl Hansen

MEMORANDUM

Melaleuca, Inc. appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing its action alleging federal and state law claims related to unsolicited and misleading commercial spam email. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Melaleuca’s claim under the federal Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM Act”) because the issue of whether Melaleuca had statutory standing to bring this claim was actually litigated in a prior action between the same parties as a critical and necessary part of the judgment in that action. See id. (setting forth factors for collateral estoppel to apply under federal law); see also Deutsch v. Flannery, 823 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir.1987) (collateral estoppel can apply to a dismissal without prejudice if the determination being given preclusive effect was essential to the dismissal). Melaleuca’s amendments did not cure its failure to allege that, even standing in the…