Joel Joseph v. American General Life Insuranc
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- Joseph v. American General Life Insurance Company (2020-10-20) — the district court's order on this docket in the record
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL DAVID JOSEPH, No. 20-56213 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00831-GPC-DEB v. MEMORANDUM* AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** 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. 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 987- 88 (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.
2 20-56213