Wesley I. Nunn v. MELISSA A. LEBLANC, AKA Melissa Fenswick, AKA Melissa Leblanc- Fenswick

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WESLEY I. NUNN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MELISSA A. LEBLANC, AKA Melissa
Fenswick, AKA Melissa Leblanc-
Fenswick,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17488
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01820-NJV
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nandor J. Vadas, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted December 14, 2016***
FILED
DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Wesley I. Nunn appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel
v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003), but we may affirm on any basis
supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Nunn’s action was proper because the action is barred by claim
and issue preclusion. See White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir.
2012) (explaining that California’s issue preclusion doctrine “precludes relitigation
of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings” and setting forth six criteria to
determine whether an issue is precluded (citation omitted)); Brodheim v. Cry, 584
F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (California’s doctrine of claim preclusion is based
on a primary rights theory); MIB, Inc. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. Rptr. 828, 832
(Ct. App. 1980) (prior dismissals on procedural grounds have preclusive effect as
to the procedural issue decided).
We reject as meritless Nunn’s contention that a comment allegedly made by
a state trial court judge at an oral hearing, and not included in any subsequent
15-17488 2

-- 2 of 3 --

written order, precludes the application of claim preclusion to this action.
AFFIRMED.
15-17488 3

-- 3 of 3 --