MEHRDAD TAIMOURZADEH, Individual v. Terence Lau;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEHRDAD TAIMOURZADEH,
Individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TERENCE LAU; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56956
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02525-DMG-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mehrdad Taimourzadeh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action alleging that
defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. We have
FILED
MAR 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56956 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal of an action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. W. Radio Servs.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Taimourzadeh’s action on the basis of
res judicata (claim preclusion) because his ADA and related state law claims were
based on the same primary right asserted in a prior state court action that was
dismissed with prejudice and Taimourzadeh did not appeal that dismissal. See
Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir.
2005) (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts
look to state law. California’s res judicata doctrine is based on a primary rights
theory.” (citation omitted)); see also Citizens for Open Gov’t v. City of Lodi, 140
Cal. Rptr. 3d 459, 482 (Ct. App. 2012) (concluding that a ruling was final for res
judicata purposes when the time to appeal the trial court judgment had expired).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --