Opinion
20-56213
08-25-2021
JOEL DAVID JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFEINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00831-GPC-DEB Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Joseph's requests for oral argument, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied.
Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action stemming from his father's life insurance policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal on the basis of res judicata). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Joseph's action because Joseph's claims were raised, or could have been raised, in Joseph's prior federal action between the parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See id. at 98788 (setting forth elements of res judicata, and explaining this court's transaction test used to determine whether two suits share a common nucleus of operative fact).
AFFIRMED.