Keicy Chung v. Vistana Vacation Ownership, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEICY CHUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VISTANA VACATION OWNERSHIP,
INC.; STARWOOD HOTELS AND
RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, FKA
Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide,
Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15936
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00469-LEK-RT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Keicy Chung appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his diversity action alleging state law claims related to his purchase of a timeshare
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15936
property in Hawaii. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Chung’s fourth
motion to amend his complaint because Chung’s proposed amended claims were
barred by res judicata and amendment would have been futile. See id. (dismissal
without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); DKN
Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth claim and
issue preclusion doctrine under California law); Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns
v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 557 (Ct. App. 2004) (claim preclusion
“bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that
could have been litigated”); see also Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 & n.4
(2008) (the preclusive effect of judgments in diversity cases is determined by the
preclusion rules of the state in which the rendering court sits).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by construing Chung’s
objection as a motion for reconsideration and denying it because Chung failed to
establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.
v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review
and bases for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --