Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

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

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 LEXIS 13295 (9th Cir. June 3, 2024) (unpublished):


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.


Share this article:


Recent Posts