“[W]e may not review a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 by a district court outside of our circuit to a district court within our circuit.”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]e may not review a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 by a district court outside of our circuit to a district court within our circuit.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 10 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL AMALFITANO, Individually No. 15-15288
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00673-BLF
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2017**
San Francisco California
Before: BERZON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS, Senior District
Judge.*** 1
*
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).
***
The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
Michael Amalfitano (“Amalfitano”) appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without leave to amend his purported class action Complaint against
Google Inc. and seeks to appeal the transfer of this action from the Eastern District
of New York to the Northern District of California. With respect to dismissal, we
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo the district court’s
dismissal under the doctrine of res judicata, Tritz v. United States Postal Serv.,
721 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013), we affirm.
“The doctrine of res judicata insures the finality of decisions, conserves
judicial resources, and protects litigants from multiple lawsuits.” McClain v.
Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 1986). “Res judicata applies when ‘the
earlier suit . . . (1) involved the same “claim” or cause of action as the later suit, (2)
reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or
privies.’” Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Sidhu v. Flecto Co., 279 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Amalfitano presented claims on January 8, 2013 in the Eastern District of
New York under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712. The
identical claims had been resolved fully by the settlement of a 2010 class action
lawsuit, In re Google Buzz Privacy Litigation, No. 10-cv-00672-JW (N.D. Cal.
filed Feb. 17, 2010) (“Buzz Class Action”).
Amalfitano was a member of the Buzz Class Action settlement class, and his
name is not on the list of class members who the Buzz Class Action court
determined had timely opted out. Res judicata, therefore, applies, and Amalfitano
is bound by the Buzz Class Action settlement, which was court-approved and
constituted a final judgment on the merits. Amalfitano might have contested his
inclusion in the settlement class by filing a motion before the Buzz Class Action
court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but he has not
demonstrated the “grave miscarriage of justice” that would permit him to file an
independent action challenging the final judgment. See United States v. Beggerly,
524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998).
With respect to the appeal of the transfer, Amalfitano’s action was
transferred to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). We
lack jurisdiction to review the decision of the Eastern District of New York to
transfer this action to the Northern District of California. Posnanski v. Gibney, 421
F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e may not review a transfer under 28 U.S.C. §
1404 by a district court outside of our circuit to a district court within our circuit.”).
AFFIRMED.
3