Martha G. Sapukotana, the surviving spouse of Sarath Sapukotana; v. Van Straalen Farm Trucking, a Washington corporation;

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA G. SAPUKOTANA, the
surviving spouse of Sarath Sapukotana; et
al.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VAN STRAALEN FARM TRUCKING, a
Washington corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PALINAWADANAGE RAMYA
CHANDRALA FERNANDO,
Intervernor - Appellant.
No. 10-16803
D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00327-JMR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John M. Roll, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
NOV 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

** This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, Senior District Judge for the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2
Submitted October 28, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and KAPLAN,*** District Judge.
The Mississippi Chancery court determined that Sarath Sapukotana had
dissolved his marriage to Ramya Chandralatha Fernando and, consequently, that
Martha Sapukotana, not Fernando, was Sarath Sapukotana’s widow. This issue
was actually litigated and was essential, see Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-63 (2010), to
that court’s judgment appointing Martha Sapukotana as administrator of the estate.
Harris v. Bd. of Trs. of State Insts. of Higher Learning, 731 So. 2d 588, 590 (Miss.
1999). This state court judgment regarding Fernando’s status would have
preclusive effect in other Mississippi courts and therefore must be given full faith
and credit in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp.,
456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982).
Because Fernando is not Sapukotana’s surviving wife, she has no
significantly protectable interest in the wrongful death suit arising from his death,
see Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-612(A) (2010). Therefore, the district court did not

-- 2 of 3 --

3
err in denying Fernando’s motion to intervene. City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621
F.3d 1251, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --