William A. Graven, named as Will Graven v. Daniel V. Esposito;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM A. GRAVEN, named as Will
Graven,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DANIEL V. ESPOSITO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17442
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01228-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William A. Graven appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging that defendants engaged in fraud in the
negotiation and drafting of a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
FEB 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to
enforce a forum selection clause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3),
Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004), and de novo
its dismissal on the basis of res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953,
956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the forum
selection clause as to the claims against the Baums, which required any action
involving the interpretation or enforcement of the settlement agreement to be
brought in the San Bernardino County, California Superior Court, because the
court correctly concluded that the clause was enforceable, and the enforcement of
the forum selection clause was reasonable. See Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1140
(“[F]orum selection clauses are presumptively valid” unless the party challenging
the clause “‘clearly show[s] that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or
that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or over-reaching.’” (citation
omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Graven’s claims against the Espositos
as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Graven raised or could have raised
these claims in his prior Arizona state court action that was brought against the
Espositos and resulted in a dismissal with prejudice. See Constantini v. Trans
2 12-17442

-- 2 of 3 --

World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1982) (“[A] federal court sitting in
diversity must apply the res judicata law of the state in which it sits.”); Tumacacori
Mission Land Dev., Ltd. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 297 P.3d 923, 925 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2013) (discussing the elements of claim preclusion under Arizona law).
We reject Graven’s contentions regarding judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-17442

-- 3 of 3 --