ROBERT G. GALLAGHER, AKA Bobby Freeman; BETTY FRANKLIN v. Richard S. Long

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT G. GALLAGHER, AKA Bobby
Freeman; BETTY FRANKLIN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
JOHN FALCONI,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD S. LONG; CYNTHIA A.
LONG; TRUSTEES FOR THE
RICHARD S. AND CYNTHIA A. LONG
TRUST; LGF ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16418
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00223-BES-
RAM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2009
San Francisco, California
FILED
DEC 17 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

** The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for
the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
2
Before: SCHROEDER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and STROM, ** District
Judge.
Plaintiffs Robert Gallagher and Betty Franklin appeal the district court’s
dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of their diversity
action against Richard and Cynthia Long, the Long trust, and a related company.
The complaint alleged that the Longs had breached a settlement agreement
intended to resolve a longstanding dispute over the parties’ interest in a collection
of celebrity memorabilia.
The underlying dispute was litigated in the courts of Delaware and resulted
in a final judgment in favor of the Longs. This action was instituted while the
Delaware litigation was still pending. There is no reason why the claims sought to
be litigated here could not have been raised in the Delaware litigation, and for that
reason the district court correctly dismissed the action as barred by res judicata. As
our court has stated, res judicata means that “a final judgment on the merits of an
action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or
could have been raised in that action.” Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097
(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 93 (1980)). The same

-- 2 of 3 --

3
principle has been recognized by the courts of Delaware. LaPoint v.
AmerisourceBergen Corp., 970 A.2d 185, 191-92 (Del. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --