From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Durney v. Magna Int'l, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 17, 2012
479 F. App'x 113 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-16402 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00361-MHP

09-17-2012

EDWARD DURNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL, INC.; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Edward Durney, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his copyright infringement action on the basis of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the Magna defendants as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Durney voluntarily dismissed two earlier lawsuits against the Magna defendants that were based on the same claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (specifying when voluntary dismissal of action operates as "an adjudication on the merits"); Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing elements of res judicata); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc., v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 1991) (closely related entities may invoke Rule 41(a)(1)(B) res judicata).

However, judgment was not properly entered as to defendants Paperboy Ventures and Jaime Lewis, who have not yet appeared in this action and were not party to both of the earlier lawsuits for purposes of res judicata. See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc., 933 F.2d at 728. Accordingly, we vacate judgment as to defendants Paperboy Ventures and Jaime Lewis and remand for further proceedings as to those defendants.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED in part.


Summaries of

Durney v. Magna Int'l, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 17, 2012
479 F. App'x 113 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Durney v. Magna Int'l, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD DURNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL, INC.; et…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 17, 2012

Citations

479 F. App'x 113 (9th Cir. 2012)

Citing Cases

Lin v. Shanghai City Corp.

up exactly, but whether the two suits arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts such that the…

Bala v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiffs presented substantial authority in the support of the position that, determining whether claims…