The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
23-15308•Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva v. DENIS McDONOUGH
23-15308Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 29, 2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DENIS McDONOUGH, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15308
D.C. No. 4:22-cv-04995-HSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
* 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
MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 23-15308
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S.
Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on claim preclusion);
Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua sponte
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Drevaleva’s action on the basis of
claim preclusion because Drevaleva raised, or could have raised, her claims in her
prior federal actions, which involved the same parties or their privies and resulted
in final judgments on the merits. See Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430
F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under
federal law).
The motion to file an oversized opening brief (Docket Entry No. 11) is
granted. The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 12.
The motion for an extension of time to serve the opening brief (Docket Entry
No. 18) is denied as unnecessary.
All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.