Cumbre, Inc.; Coachella Valley Insurance Service, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

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).
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of***
International Trade, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CUMBRE, INC.; COACHELLA
VALLEY INSURANCE SERVICE, INC.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE
FUND,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-17190
D.C. No. 4:09-cv-02706-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 5, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HALL and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.***
FILED
NOV 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court correctly concluded that claim preclusion bars the claims
brought by Cumbre, Inc. and Coachella Valley Ins. Co. (collectively, “Cumbre”).
Claim preclusion “bars any subsequent suit on claims that were raised or could
have been raised in a prior action.” Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lash Group, Inc.,
586 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cumbre’s present suit alleges the same primary right violation that Cumbre
alleged in state court. The final decision by the California Court of Appeals
conclusively rejecting that claim is res judicata as to the identical federal claim
asserted in this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262,
1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts are required to give
state court judgments the preclusive effects they would be given by another court
of that state.”).
Cumbre argues for application of Furey v. City of Sacramento, 780 F.2d
1448 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Schnuck v. City
of Santa Monica, 935 F.2d 171, 173 (9th Cir. 1991), but that reliance is misplaced.
Under California law, the issuance of a remittitur by the court of appeal indicates
that the state appellate process has been concluded. Kay v. City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, 504 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --