New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

FRAP 38 Sanctions Request In Brief Denied Because Separate Motion Required — But Denied Without Prejudice To Filing Separate Motion

Download PDF

Prabhjot Kaur Kang v. W. Governors Univ., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 13295 (9th Cir. June 3, 2024) (unpublished):

MEMORANDUM*

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Prabhjot Kaur Kang appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her diversity action alleging breach of contract against her former university. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp., Inc., 353 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of res judicata because Kang had previously brought an action against defendant regarding the same causes of action and subject matter that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal court must apply state law regarding res judicata to a prior state court judgment); Ofuasia v. Smurr, 198 Wn. App. 133, 392 P.3d 1148, 1154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017) (setting forth elements of res judicata under Washington law); Karlberg v. Otten, 167 Wn. App. 522, 280 P.3d 1123, 1130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) ("[R]es judicata prohibits the relitigation of claims and issues that were litigated, or could have been litigated, in a prior action[.]").

We do not [*2]  consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, or documents not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Appellee's request for fees, set forth in the answering brief, is denied without prejudice to the filing of a separate, noticed motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

RICO Statute of Limitations: (1) Under Separate Accrual Rule, Plaintiff May Recover Only for Additional Damages Suffered as a Result of the New Predicate Act and Not for Earlier Predicates Outside the 4-Year Limitations Period — (2) No Equitable Tolling Absent Diligence in Filing Suit — 3.25 Year Delay between Indictment and Filing Suit Too Long (Even 9 Months May Be Too Long) — “Equity Favors Those Who Diligently Pursue Their Known Rights” (Good Quote)

Sanctions: Rule 41(b) Overlaps with Inherent Power to the Extent It Authorizes Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with a Court Order — Rule 41(b) Dismissal OK for Failure to Comply with Court Order on Notice of the Drastic Ramifications and When Predicated on a Protracted Course of Dilatory Or Otherwise Improper Behavior — Dismissal Sanction May Be Upheld When Point of Noncompliance with Order Is to Accelerate Appeal

RICO and Constitutional Standing — Concrete Injury Required for Constitutional Standing (And, Thus, for Standing in RICO Case, Notwithstanding a Disagreement Among the Circuits as to Whether Concrete Injury Is Required for RICO Standing) — At the Pleading Stage, General Factual Allegations of Injury May Suffice, But They Must Be Plausible and May Not Be Conclusory

(1) RICO and Securities Fraud: Conviction Exception — Caselaw Not Uniform as to Whether Plaintiff’s Damages Must Result from Securities Fraud Directed at Plaintiff — Appeals: 4 Factors Court of Appeals Considers in Deciding Whether to Entertain Arguments Newly Raised on Appeal

RICO Statute of Limitations — Accrual: Actual or Inquiry Notice — Equitable Tolling — Courts Have Inherent Flexibility to Choose Grounds for Disposing of a Case without Reaching the Merits

Colorado River Abstention — Factors

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice