NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIDLAND INNOVATIONS, NV, No. 16-17242
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-05316-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WEN WANG; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Midland Innovations, NV, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing
its diversity action alleging state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal of an action as
duplicative. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Midland’s action
on the basis that the instant action is duplicative of an earlier-filed action, Midland
Innovations, NV v. Weiland International Inc., et al., No. 4:07-mc-80257-CW. See
id. at 689 (explaining that an action is duplicative if “the causes of action and relief
sought, as well as the parties . . . to the action, are the same” and setting forth
criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the
same).
Midland’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket Entry No. 9) and Chen’s
Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket Entry No. 20) are granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-17242