HACIENDA MANAGEMENT, S. De R.L. De C.V v. Starwood Capital Group Global I, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HACIENDA MANAGEMENT, S. De
R.L. De C.V,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STARWOOD CAPITAL GROUP
GLOBAL I, LLC; STARWOOD
GLOBAL OPPORTUNITY FUND VI-A;
STARWOOD GLOBAL OPPORTUNITY
FUND VI-B; SOF-VI MANAGEMENT,
LLC; and STARWOOD CAPITAL
GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16591
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00395-SC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Samuel Conti, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2014**
San Francisco, California
FILED
MAR 28 2014
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 --

Before: FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District
Judge.***
Plaintiff, Hacienda Management, S. De R.L. De C.V., appeals the district
court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the ground of
claim preclusion, a/k/a res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo, Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir.
1992), and we affirm.
The district court should have applied New York law on the doctrine of claim
preclusion in determining whether the New York judgment bars this action. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1738; see also Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980) (“Congress has specifically
required all federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever
the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do so.”). Regardless,
the district court properly granted summary judgment based on claim preclusion. In
the prior New York proceeding, Hacienda asserted claims arising out of the same
subject matter and based on the same harm against Defendants or parties in privity
with Defendants. See In re Estate of Hunter, 827 N.E.2d 269, 291 (N.Y. 2005)
(“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment
*** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior United States District Judge
for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same
subject matter.”); O’Brien v. City of Syracuse, 429 N.E.2d 1158, 1159 (N.Y. 1981)
(noting that under New York’s “transactional analysis approach,” all claims arising
out of the same transaction are barred, even if based upon different theories or if
seeking a different remedy).
Defendants move for monetary sanctions against Hacienda and its counsel
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and 28 U.S.C. §
1927 for filing a frivolous appeal. Hacienda’s appeal was not wholly without merit
or groundless. See Ingle v. Circuit City, 408 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2005). We
therefore deny Defendants’ motion for sanctions.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --