Opinion
D.C. No. CV-98-05307-WJR(SHx)
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, William J. Rea, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BROWNING, BEEZER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or used by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
We apply California law to determine the preclusive effect of the prior judgment in this diversity case. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir.1982). Under California law, federal standards govern the preclusive effect of a prior federal court judgment. See id.
A declaratory judgment normally does not preclude a subsequent claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2202. However, when the action for declaratory judgment includes any request for coercive relief, normal rules of claim preclusion apply. See Brannock Assoc. v. Capitol 801 Corp., 807 F.Supp. 127, 134 (D.D.C.1992). In filing for declaratory judgment, Mr. Cheren also requested (1) $3,000 plus interest; (2) attorney's fees; and (3) "such other and further relief as the court deems proper." The district court did not err in holding that, because Mr. Cheren sought coercive relief in his complaint for declaratory judgment, he is precluded from bringing an action for bad faith of the insurer on the same claim.
AFFIRMED.