“[I]n Arizona, a 5 tortious bad faith cause of action arising out of a breach of employment agreement, when 6 no public policy is violated, is prohibited.”
How later courts described this case
- “[I]n Arizona, a 5 tortious bad faith cause of action arising out of a breach of employment agreement, when 6 no public policy is violated, is prohibited.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALE GORNEY, No. 14-16753
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00023-CKJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Dale Gorney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
employment action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his
termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
*
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).
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any basis
supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d
1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Gorney’s action was proper as precluded by Arizona’s
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because Gorney’s claims were
already raised or could have been raised in his prior administrative proceeding, and
the issue of whether Gorney was properly discharged was litigated during his
agency appeal. See Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 1999)
(claims or defenses that were raised or could have been raised in administrative
hearing were barred by res judicata in subsequent litigation); Gilbert v. Ben-Asher,
900 F.2d 1407, 1410-11 (9th Cir. 1990) (collateral estoppel precluded party from
relitigating whether physician’s license was properly revoked because issue was
litigated in prior administrative proceeding).
We reject as meritless Gorney’s contentions regarding undue prejudice and
delay caused by defendants’ removal to federal court.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16753