Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
09-35633•Henry Manjarres v. Oregon Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Oregon
09-35633Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit20.07.2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRY MANJARRES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, an agency of the
State of Oregon,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35633
D.C. No. 6:07-cv-06323-TC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Henry Manjarres appeals from the district court’s summary judgment for the
Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT) in his employment discrimination
and retaliation action under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
09-35633 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924,
927 (9th Cir. 2009), and may affirm on any basis supported by the record, see
Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950, 956 (9th Cir.
2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, under
Oregon claim preclusion law, Manjarres’s federal action is barred by the adverse
judgment in his prior state court action against the Oregon DOT. See Holcombe v.
Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state
claim preclusion law to state court judgments); see also Rennie v. Freeway
Transp., 656 P.2d 919, 921 (Or. 1982) (an action is precluded if based on the same
factual transaction as a prior suit, seeks additional or alternative remedies to those
sought earlier, and raises claims that could have been joined in the first action).
We need not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.